> On 13 Mar 2020, at 17:14, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes:
>> I read this is as a preventative patch to stay ahead of future changes to
>> packaging. If these changes do materialize, won't they be equally likely to
>> hit installations for backbranch minors as v13?
>
> Yeah, that's the argument *for* back-patching. Question is whether it
> outweighs the risk of silently breaking somebody's build by linking
> to the wrong libxml2 version.
Correct, my argument is that breakage can be expected equally across branches,
so I think back-patching should be seriously considered.
>> We refer to both libxml and libxml2 in these paragraphs. Since upstream is
>> consistently referring to it as libxml2, maybe we should take this as
>> opportunity to switch to that for the docs?
>
> I think we're kind of stuck with "--with-libxml". Conceivably we
> could introduce "--with-libxml2", redefine the old switch as an
> obsolete alias, and start saying "libxml2" instead of "libxml".
> But I'm not sure that's worth the trouble, and it seems like
> material for a different patch anyway.
Absolutely, thats why I referred to changing mentions of libxml in the docs
only where we refer to the product and not the switch (the latter was not very
clear in my email though). Also, shouldn't libxml2 be within <productname>
tags like OpenSSL and LLVM et.al?
cheers ./daniel