On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 16:09, Jordi Boggiano <j.boggi...@seld.be> wrote: > On 26.04.2012 15:50, Christian Stocker wrote: >> dom has the version 20031129 which is greater than 5. Not sure if anyone >> really checks against that, since not much changed there since obviously >> 2003 ;) > > Yup it's the only one I noticed but since it's fairly well established, > usually you don't need to check if it's there (AFAIK). > >> But the problem with extensions like dom is the used libxml version >> which actually causes problems, not the version of the extension itself. >> There's a bug in libxml < 2.7.0 which can hit you hard for certain >> namespaces. So getting just the version number won't help you here. >> >> But that's not something we have to take care of IMHO, one can get that >> information with LIBXML_VERSION or LIBXML_DOTTED_VERSION > > True, and maybe we should actually expose libxml and other bundled libs > as packages too via Composer. Could be handy.
libxml isn't bundled.. That is why its often hard to understand why stuff works on one server but not the other :) For many extensions wrapping external libraries it is more useful to know the version of that lib then the extension. -Hannes -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
