These simply dont work: Thread - crashes on shutdown iisfunc - crashes on shutdown SAM - tries to load a file via include during RINIT
I enabled all extensions minus those three and my installation still works, those would be the priority. The following are only avilable in CVS and have never had a stable release: ixsfunc php_win32scheduler php_win32service There are no doubt more that could be removed but moving the PECL extensions into a separate tree in the installer with a stable and unstable branch may be an idea. Or remove the ones in beta completely. Scott John Mertic wrote: > Make a list of what's considered non-stable and I can drop them from > the builds for 5.2.4. > > On 8/21/07, Scott MacVicar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> There is now another 3 extensions added and the broken ones have yet to >> see any sort of love to get them working. >> >> I'm for removing the non stable PECL extensions or at least those that >> don't even load, especially before 5.2.4. >> >> Scott >> >> John Mertic wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 7/2/07, Antony Dovgal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> On 03.07.2007 00:50, John Mertic wrote: >>>>>> If an author would like his extension in the Windows installer then >>>> they >>>>>> could just ask, would prevent unmaintained and unstable extensions >>>>>> included in the build. >>>>> But we are shipping them currently in the zip build ( all I'm doing is >>>>> repackaging php-5.2.x-win32.zip and pecl-5.2.x-win32.zip ) >>>> The zip build is php-5.2.x-win32.zip, you merge it with the PECL >>>> package (pecl-5.2.x-win32.zip), >>>> which I believe is supposed to be completely separate thing and that >>>> causes the mess. >>> It's separate, but there is nothing telling the end user that some >>> extensions ( such as APC, memcache, etc ) are good to use while others >>> aren't. >>> >>>>> so I think the issue would be better dealt with at the PECL level. >>>> Well. no doubt it should be dealt on the PECL level (i.e. maintainers >>>> should start >>>> maintaining their extensions etc.), but that's a bit unrealistic.. >>> That's why I think that have the same sort of tagging system PEAR uses >>> with stable, beta, alpha would help out here tremendously, but like >>> you said that's a topic for another thread.... >>> >>>>>> Could the features potentially be grouped into two trees? Core and >>>> added >>>>>> functionality that can come from PECL? >>>>> Originally, I was thinking the same thing, but the consensus was to >>>>> make it the way it is currently. I like the two tree approach myself >>>>> and switch to that if that what everyone wants to do. But I do >>>>> remember the disention is that it seemed to confusing; perhaps >>>>> splitting them up based upon stability instead? >>>> Not sure I get you correctly (most probably not), but we do have two >>>> separate .zip >>>> packages for Win32 and I don't remember any complaints about it. >>>> To my personal understanding, the point of this thread is: "please do >>>> not merge PECL package into the CORE". >>>> Just leave it as is, it's separate package and it's not supposed to be >>>> included into the official distro >>>> (most of those packages should not be built & distributed at all, but >>>> that's a topic for another discussion). >>> Then let's go with putting the PECL packages in the installer, but a >>> separate menu like you mentioned. Like I said I liked that idea from >>> the start, but I remember people thought it was too confusing for some >>> reason. From my ( and your ) vantage point it makes it much clearer. >>> > > -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
