Re: [lmi] PATCH: Upgrade xmlwrapp to 0.9.0

[Greg Chicares]

On 2018-04-10 21:46, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
[...]
>  I've created https://github.com/vadz/lmi/pull/81 using the latest xmlwrapp
> 0.9.0 release. It's pretty trivial, as nothing needs to be changed so far
> and there are no patches specific to this version, but I did test it and
> everything seemed fine here.

Okay, I've pushed this on faith. I need to rerun 'install_msw.sh' tomorrow,
but I know Kim won't need to do that, so it's safe enough.

>  BTW, I didn't do it in my PR, but I think that all the files pertaining to
> the older xmlwrapp versions, i.e. xmlwrapp-0.[678]*.{md5sums,patch}, should
> be simply removed

Done, though not pushed yet.

> And, while we're at it, I'd also consider
> renaming xmlwrapp-0.9.0.md5sums to just xmlwrapp.md5sums, it's not like
> there is any danger of confusion here (MD5 sums wouldn't match if it there
> ever were a version mismatch).

That would replace the regularity of the '$(foo)-md5 := ...' section
with irregularity. I think I'd rather move xmlwrapp out of this
makefile and get it from git (in which case we wouldn't have to ask
you to make special releases for lmi)--and maybe even build it with
autotools, much as we do with wxPdfDoc.

But I'm in no hurry to do that. Compared to the total contents of:
  /srv/cache_for_lmi/downloads
the xmlwrapp archive is only five percent. But the wx+submodules
git repositories are one thousand percent of that total, and size
is an important consideration--so I think we should polish our
usage of this:
  /srv/cache_for_lmi/vcs
first. For example, if we always maintain a wx repository there
with all submodule repositories, I'm thinking we can clone it thus:
  git clone --recurse-submodules --reference-if-able our-cache

>  Also, https://github.com/vslavik/xmlwrapp/releases/tag/v0.9.0 includes
> both tar.gz and tar.xz downloads, with the latter being almost 1.5 times
> smaller. I didn't change the makefile to use the .xz archive to avoid any
> unnecessary changes, but if you'd like it, it would be very simple to use
> the .xz download link instead -- please let me know if I should do this.

Good idea, but I'd rather replace it with a git repository instead.