Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2024 15:54:26 +0100 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> To: Nuno Teixeira <eduardo@freebsd.org> Cc: FreeBSD CURRENT <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: base64.h problems with rtorent port Message-ID: <klbryd2bya5ybkjcpp26xu6bplu6yzsmvjd7qsd4xfdv7qphsj@cn4d6bea3igl> In-Reply-To: <CAFDf7U%2ByL8uBKQKW83WDwQVo=HGUWrAg_6h7KD21E18R58gxWg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAFDf7UJ3uc0jUasWwOUK1cQkWV65Za9uR=z6kcPCaD36QwcX1A@mail.gmail.com> <e794b549374b282f1b5211f703a86a8682215fde@freebsd.org> <CAFDf7U%2BLkfSXDCP0kw8jvd-6Xue0ge1mubrDBOotCq9cuMP3aA@mail.gmail.com> <boltawtg355cfkad4ko6wl6gli7a3ijqtlzpxqmtov2qgbi6if@pqdpvbb7emd5> <CAFDf7U%2ByL8uBKQKW83WDwQVo=HGUWrAg_6h7KD21E18R58gxWg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri 27 Dec 14:24, Nuno Teixeira wrote: > Perfect! > > I'm thinking using a radio option where we can select one of xml parsers or > none as supported upstream, defaulting to TINYXML. > > A quick look in repology shows that at least 3 linux distros use directly > `--with-xmlrpc-tinyxml2` with 0.15.0 pkgs. I'm ok with simplifying port or > keep radio option. > > Cheers! My understanding is users have no idea what the difference is, upstream recommands their new xmlrpc implementation, we probably only provide this implementation and if we have reports of issues without, switch back to the xmlrpc-c based one until upstream fixes the issue. Which means in the end drop entirely the option ;) Best regards, Bapt
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?klbryd2bya5ybkjcpp26xu6bplu6yzsmvjd7qsd4xfdv7qphsj>