For me, it's less about easier than about co-existing on a non-dedicated server. We're never going to get people to try MapGuide if it breaks their other applications to run it :)<div><br></div><div>If we find particular problems I'm guessing that we can set specific version stuff in the apt requirements?</div>
<div><br></div><div>It would be cool if, as we gradually upgrade the OEM libraries, we could switch to specifying a build rather than maintaining in our tree. This would allow us to bite off small chunks at a time. This would also force us to work directly with those communities, contributing back up the chain. While this would be more overhead, it would also be a lot less painful when upgrading the libraries.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Possibly more of a discussion for internals :)</div><div><br></div><div>Jason<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 31 March 2010 22:43, Trevor Wekel wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Easier to compile? Yes. The libraries will be up to date.<br>
<br>
Easier to ensure MapGuide stability? That's a very good question. Mixing and matching oem libs could potentially lead to unexpected side effects but more up to date libraries *should* have fewer bugs.<br><br></blockquote>
</div></div>