On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Lester Caine <les...@lsces.co.uk> wrote:
> On 09/09/16 14:28, Lester Caine wrote: > > I'd forgotten the official windows packages no longer had PEAR anyway. > > Does make the discussion on that somewhat academic? We have been > > installing Linux servers as replacements to the windows boxes so the > > need to actually load newer windows builds as been rather rare, and I > > was using a stacked version when I did ... which is another alternative > > to distributions on windows. > > Doing some digging I've found the conversations on this back in 2011. At > that time the statement was made that 'php project does not provide > binary builds' and 'if the user can't install a compiler they should not > be using php'. I'll not name the source ... it was a thread on this list > in 2011. > interesting, could you direct me to the thread at least? I couldn't find anything with those exact quotes and I'm subscibed to the list longer than 2011. the only platform we provide binaries is windows,but we provide official windows binaries since like forever (and least as I can go back in history, php 3.0.11 at least), so that quote is either incorrect, or comes from somebody uninformed, or have some specific context you are not quoting with it. > > The problem that we were discussing at the time was availability not > only of PHP on windows but also Apache, and the fact that neither > project provides official builds on windows. as I mentioned before (and mentioned in every release announcement) php does indeed provide official windows binaries, you are correct that apache http project does not. > While there were 'free' > paths to do your own builds on windows and I had documented my own > process at that time. These were NOT acceptable by government agencies > to provide audited installations. Windows applications come pre-compiled > and while I think that the more modern build paths can be download for > free they are not free for commercial use? I'm not sure what do you mean by this, but this probably depends on your own policies and the distributions you decide to grab your builds from. > An 'official' compiled build > is a requirement for windows. Although that does not necessarily need to > be provided by PHP. Apachelounge is an approved source amongst my > customers. > yeah, Apache Lounge is one of the available option to grab apache http binaries for windows, and also endorsed by the apache httpd team: https://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/platform/windows.html > > I think I am right in saying Pierre originally needed pickle so that > PEAR could be dropped in the windows? Not sure why did you get that idea, as mentioned before the windows team already unbundled PEAR from the core since 5.3 or so (which imo makes sense as pecl wasn't really an option for building and installing pecl extensions on windows). > So the only element left is > bundling PEAR with the source distribution. I've not had to worry about > PHP7 on windows as yet as the few sites were are allowed to use it are > linux servers, but it will come a point when we need to audit a PHP7 > windows installation, along with a web server. And it looks as if while > 5 years ago nginx was ahead of apache, the commercialization of the > former is taking it off the play list :( Just when I've got it working > nicely as a background to testing multiple copies of PHP on the same > code. This is about making PHP easily available across the board and > while windows may now be confined to the desktop machine, it is still > more popular than linux on commercial and government systems? > sorry, can't really decipher this part, maybe it's just me. -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
