Re: prefer in-tree libiconv over the system libiconv?

[Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>]

> I think the relevant scenario is something like the old Cygnus "devo"
> tree, where you would have libiconv always present and also use the
> single soruce tree on all hosts.  In this situation, would you prefer
> to pick up the system iconv on Linux?  Or would you prefer to always
> use libiconv and have identical behavior across hosts (at some cost; I
> think the native glibc iconv probably handles more charsets).

My very personal preference is to go for consistency. I like to know
that the library will behave the same from HP/UX to GNU/Linux.
Also, I don't like depending on system libraries, because I lose a bit
of control over what the user ends up using. I am afraid of situations
where we cannot reproduce and identify a bug simply because the user
has a different version of the library from the version that I have.

I think that the current approach would have made more sense if libiconv
was in fact made part of the GDB sources, thus forcing people to have
the libiconv sources be part of their tree.

That being said, now wearing my AdaCore hat, I'm perfectly happy to have
to use a command-line switch. We already do that with libexpat, and
it's done in a script anyway...

I'm actually happy to work on a patch once others have had a chance
to tell us what they would prefer. If no one speaks up, then I guess
I'll implement what my prefered alternative (this is my way of
threatening everyone into participating ;-).

-- 
Joel