Wez Furlong wrote:
> Finally, you need the php_build dir that contains all the
> headers and libraries for the things that php is linked
> against; see [1] for details.
The current version of this archive does not contain libxml2/libxslt.
It would be nice if these could be added and even nice
Wez Furlong wrote:
> Then type nmake to build the things you configured.
Current CVS breaks at this point for me:
E:\home\php\php5>cscript /nologo configure.js --enable-debug --disable-apache
Saving configure options to config.nice.bat
Checking for cl.exe ...
Checking for link.exe ...
Check
> >>What do you think? Is it ok to break the BC here or not? As you see the
> >>other change introduced with the patch is to use the whole needle string
> >>while searching, not only the first character.
> >>
> >That break was intentional. Having strrpos() behave differently from
> >strpos() in re
> From: Derick Rethans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 8:02 PM
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, George Schlossnagle wrote:
>
> >
> > On Dec 2, 2003, at 1:18 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, George Schlossnagle wrote:
> > >
> > >> I'd like to convert the r
Wez:
Your new compile routine -- which sounds nice, thanks -- seems to come
just in time for me...
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 11:40:18PM -, Wez Furlong wrote:
> You also need the Microsoft build tools (cl.exe, link.exe and nmake.exe).
> These are freely available as part of the Platform SDK,
Sara Golemon wrote:
The documenation of both function states if the second parameter is an
integer instead of string then its value is used as a ord of the character
to be used during the search. This no more true with HEAD.
Good catch. This should not have been broken, I'll fix this.
oki
> The main reason is that it is the easiest way to get things to
> built right now; I do plan to accomodate your own layout,
> but haven't coded support for that yet :)
Ok. Thats fine. I'll be happy to help with this.
>
> I'll make this particular thing optional (but print a warning)
> for now
> this night i saw that the BC of strrpos()/strripos()
> is broken by a patch commited by pollita 7 months ago :
>
http://cvs.php.net/diff.php/php-src/ext/standard/string.c?login=2&r1=1.370&r2=1.371&ty=u
> The documenation of both function states if the second parameter is an
> integer instead of s
The main reason is that it is the easiest way to get things to
built right now; I do plan to accomodate your own layout,
but haven't coded support for that yet :)
I'll make this particular thing optional (but print a warning)
for now; can you build without it?
(I take it you have your preferred pa
Hi Wez,
Why is that needed ? I build all the stuff that I need from sources so I
have my own file structure for external header and library files.
- Frank
> --with-php-build should be the path to the dir where you
> unzipped: http://www.php.net/extra/win32build.zip.
>
> Maybe I should rename it
--with-php-build should be the path to the dir where you
unzipped: http://www.php.net/extra/win32build.zip.
Maybe I should rename it from php_build (that name comes
from Edin's snap building scripts, and his big brother
version of that zip file).
--Wez.
- Original Message -
From: "Frank
Hi Wez,
If I don't specify --with-php-build I get this
Saving configure options to config.nice.bat
Checking for cl ... cl.exe
Checking for link ... link.exe
Checking for nmake ... nmake.exe
Checking for make ...
ERROR: Could not find the php_build dir; please specify it
using the --with-php-bui
Done.
> Neat. Could you add a README.WIN32-BUILD-SYSTEM file that contains
> all of the information that you provided in this email?
>
> --
> Jon Parise ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) :: The PHP Project (http://www.php.net/)
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit:
Ahh, fixed now :-)
--with-php-build specifies the path to the php_build dir
(the one that contains those headers and libs),
not the target dir, which is chosen automatically.
cscript /nologo configure.js --disable-apache
should be all you need (cross your fingers!)
--Wez.
- Original Messa
Hi devs,
this night i saw that the BC of strrpos()/strripos()
is broken by a patch commited by pollita 7 months ago :
http://cvs.php.net/diff.php/php-src/ext/standard/string.c?login=2&r1=1.370&r2=1.371&ty=u
The documenation of both function states if the second parameter is an
integer instead of st
Here is the output
C:\PHP\php5>cscript /nologo configure.js --with-php-build=Release_TS
--disable-apache
Saving configure options to config.nice.bat
Checking for cl ... cl.exe
Checking for link ... link.exe
Checking for nmake ... nmake.exe
Checking for make ...
Build dir: Release_TS
PHP Core:
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 11:40:18PM -, Wez Furlong wrote:
> I've committed the build infrastructure for the
> "real programmers don't need an IDE" build system for win32.
Neat. Could you add a README.WIN32-BUILD-SYSTEM file that contains
all of the information that you provided in this emai
--disable-apache Works For Me (tm)
What goes wrong for you?
--Wez.
- Original Message -
From: "Frank M. Kromann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Wez Furlong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 12:18 AM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] New win32 build system
>
Hi Wez,
Cool. So far it also requires apache. ++diable+apache does not seam to
work!
- Frank
> I've committed the build infrastructure for the
> "real programmers don't need an IDE" build system for win32.
>
> Why?
> - It's frustrating to have to use VC6 to work on PHP if you
> have a newer
I've committed the build infrastructure for the
"real programmers don't need an IDE" build system for win32.
Why?
- It's frustrating to have to use VC6 to work on PHP if you
have a newer version that has incompatible project files.
- It's annoying to mess around with libxml2 stuff until it
st
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:34:04PM +0100, Derick Rethans wrote:
>
> No, we don't archive those. But you can do a cvs checkout with a certain
> date:
>
> cvs -d :pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/repository co -D 2003-11-15
> -d php-5.0dev php-src
I was afraid of that. So, I'd need to then compile/buil
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Christian Stocker wrote:
> > This raises my question of my the new Exception class uses CamelCaps instead
> > of underscores?
> >
> > For instance, its methods are: getMessage(), getCode(), etc.
> >
> > I don't think any other built-in method or packaged extension does this.
>
On 12/2/03 7:51 PM, Adam Maccabee Trachtenberg wrote:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, George Schlossnagle wrote:
On Dec 2, 2003, at 1:22 PM, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
George Schlossnagle wrote:
I'd like to convert the reflection API to the current php standard of
CamelCaps (instead of underscores) for i
I've got a fix for Bug #24773 ( http://bugs.php.net/24773 )
However, I've neither the confidence nor the karma to apply it.
Patches for ZE1 and ZE2:
http://frankenbox.alphaweb.net/test/24773-ze1.diff
http://frankenbox.alphaweb.net/test/24773-ze2.diff
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Daniel Convissor wrote:
> I'm looking for old snapshots of php5 win32 packages. From my browsing
> around the tree, snaps.php.net only has the past few ones. Do they exist
> somewhere, please?
No, we don't archive those. But you can do a cvs checkout with a certain
date:
cv
Hey Folks:
I'm looking for old snapshots of php5 win32 packages. From my browsing
around the tree, snaps.php.net only has the past few ones. Do they exist
somewhere, please?
This question hasn't been answered when asked in my bug report replies.
I'm trying to pinpoint when a particular bug aro
At 09:48 PM 12/2/2003 +0100, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> So what's the verdict? Are we dumping Windows 95?
Do you mean Windows 95 or PHP support for Windows 95? Actually... both
work for me ;-)
Okay, I officially broke it now with my latest TSRM patch ;)
Andi
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> So what's the verdict? Are we dumping Windows 95?
Do you mean Windows 95 or PHP support for Windows 95? Actually... both
work for me ;-)
Derick
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>So what's the verdict? Are we dumping Windows?
YES! :)
--Jani
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, George Schlossnagle wrote:
>
> On Dec 2, 2003, at 1:18 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, George Schlossnagle wrote:
> >
> >> I'd like to convert the reflection API to the current php standard of
> >> CamelCaps (instead of underscores) for it's class and method
On Dec 2, 2003, at 1:51 PM, Adam Maccabee Trachtenberg wrote:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, George Schlossnagle wrote:
On Dec 2, 2003, at 1:22 PM, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
George Schlossnagle wrote:
I'd like to convert the reflection API to the current php standard
of
CamelCaps (instead of underscores)
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, George Schlossnagle wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2003, at 1:22 PM, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
>
> > George Schlossnagle wrote:
> >> I'd like to convert the reflection API to the current php standard of
> >> CamelCaps (instead of underscores) for it's class and method names.
> >
> > Why
Hello Christian,
Tuesday, December 2, 2003, 7:18:11 PM, you wrote:
> Marcus Boerger wrote:
>> I see all your concerns. But from my point of view pear has (of course) the
>> problem that it is written in php4 and for php4. So PEAR needs to address
>> the move towards php5 code anyway. An optional
On Dec 2, 2003, at 1:22 PM, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
George Schlossnagle wrote:
I'd like to convert the reflection API to the current php standard of
CamelCaps (instead of underscores) for it's class and method names.
Why deviate from PEAR CS in this?
Well, as the classes are builtin's it's not
Andi Gutmans wrote:
Again, people don't have to use E_STRICT. I think having two new E_'s is
Why then introduce it at all? Or why not slightly change it to be useful
for a lot more people?
> a bit of an overkill especially as there aren't that many things we
> can add to them.
I think all of the
Yes.
- Frank
> So what's the verdict? Are we dumping Windows 95?
>
> Andi
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/u
George Schlossnagle wrote:
> I'd like to convert the reflection API to the current php standard of
> CamelCaps (instead of underscores) for it's class and method names.
Why deviate from PEAR CS in this?
--
Sebastian Bergmann
http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ http://phpOpenTracker
Again, people don't have to use E_STRICT. I think having two new E_'s is a
bit of an overkill especially as there aren't that many things we can add
to them.
At 07:18 PM 12/2/2003 +0100, Christian Schneider wrote:
Marcus Boerger wrote:
I see all your concerns. But from my point of view pear has
On Dec 2, 2003, at 1:18 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, George Schlossnagle wrote:
I'd like to convert the reflection API to the current php standard of
CamelCaps (instead of underscores) for it's class and method names.
Any objections?
yes
Care to elaborate?
George
--
PHP Interna
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, George Schlossnagle wrote:
> I'd like to convert the reflection API to the current php standard of
> CamelCaps (instead of underscores) for it's class and method names.
> Any objections?
yes
Derick
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visi
Marcus Boerger wrote:
I see all your concerns. But from my point of view pear has (of course) the
problem that it is written in php4 and for php4. So PEAR needs to address
the move towards php5 code anyway. An optional E_STRICT would help here
wouldn't it?
[My concern is that if E_STRICT warns abou
Hello George,
Tuesday, December 2, 2003, 6:58:58 PM, you wrote:
> I'd like to convert the reflection API to the current php standard of
> CamelCaps (instead of underscores) for it's class and method names.
> Any objections?
No objections. Strong agreement.'
--
Best regards,
Marcus
Hello Stanislav,
Tuesday, December 2, 2003, 10:01:40 AM, you wrote:
AK>>> but this is a whole world clearer...
AK>>>
AK>>> foreach($s->person->children as $person) {
AK>>> $firstname_text_value = $person->firstname->value;
AK>>> }
> I agree 100%. It looks cool if yo do $a = $b and behind t
Yep :)
- Original Message -
From: "Andi Gutmans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 5:51 PM
Subject: [PHP-DEV] Windows 95
> So what's the verdict? Are we dumping Windows 95?
>
> Andi
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To
Based on the comments on the cvs list I think this would be a good idea.
+1
Ilia
On December 2, 2003 12:51 pm, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> So what's the verdict? Are we dumping Windows 95?
>
> Andi
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/uns
I'd like to convert the reflection API to the current php standard of
CamelCaps (instead of underscores) for it's class and method names.
Any objections?
George
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
So what's the verdict? Are we dumping Windows 95?
Andi
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Hello Melvyn,
Tuesday, December 2, 2003, 10:53:17 AM, you wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 December 2003 09:18, Derick Rethans wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Melvyn Sopacua wrote:
>> > On Monday 01 December 2003 23:27, Derick Rethans wrote:
>> > > > I don't quite understand the problem. E_STRICT was only me
Hello Christian,
Tuesday, December 2, 2003, 1:14:12 PM, you wrote:
> Andi Gutmans wrote:
>> E_STRICT will be disabled by default. It is only meant for people who
>> want to be sure that they are using the recommended methods, and that
>> definitely includes not using var.
> The problem is that
I commited a fix. I am not quite sure why the existing code was doing what
it was so I'm waiting for Zeev (who wrote that part) to verify that my fix
is OK. (He's travelling right now so it'll take some time).
In the meanwhile, if any of your scripts break because of my fix please let
me know.
Andi Gutmans wrote:
E_STRICT will be disabled by default. It is only meant for people who
want to be sure that they are using the recommended methods, and that
definitely includes not using var.
The problem is that it doesn't match the real world. People _are_ using
PEAR and people _are_ using P
At 11:42 PM 12/1/2003 +, Steph wrote:
> Because win98 supports the functions we want to use (while win95
> does not).
> And the build system has nothing to do with the runtime support :)
Agreed, but sooner or later it will.. Andi, why (specifically) did Zend
drop win98 support?
We haven't drop
I think there are quite a few Win98 users and I see no reason to dump it,
especially as it supports the system calls we need.
At 11:34 PM 12/1/2003 +, Steph wrote:
Can anyone explain to me why we're not dumping support for win98 at the same
time pls?
(Given that the PHP5 build system doesn't
At 11:40 PM 12/1/2003 +0100, Stig S. Bakken wrote:
For the next 18-24 months, we are going to have to deal with code
running in both PHP 4 and 5. Why not declare "var" an alias for
"public", not throw E_STRICT for it and be done with it? If not this
issue will be a real PITA for PEAR users.
Stig,
Stig S. Bakken wrote:
For the next 18-24 months, we are going to have to deal with code
running in both PHP 4 and 5. Why not declare "var" an alias for
"public", not throw E_STRICT for it and be done with it? If not this
issue will be a real PITA for PEAR users.
+1 from me (not that my vote count
On Tuesday 02 December 2003 09:18, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Melvyn Sopacua wrote:
> > On Monday 01 December 2003 23:27, Derick Rethans wrote:
> > > > I don't quite understand the problem. E_STRICT was only meant for
> > > > people who really want to be pedantic. I think we can ma
At 09:18 AM 12/2/2003 +0100, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Melvyn Sopacua wrote:
> On Monday 01 December 2003 23:27, Derick Rethans wrote:
>
> > > I don't quite understand the problem. E_STRICT was only meant for
people
> > > who really want to be pedantic. I think we can make it not
AK>> but this is a whole world clearer...
AK>>
AK>> foreach($s->person->children as $person) {
AK>> $firstname_text_value = $person->firstname->value;
AK>> }
I agree 100%. It looks cool if yo do $a = $b and behind the scenes it
launches whole train of magic and runs a lot of code, but it's
This is the simple test script:
Steps to reproduce:
1) Start Apache
2) Access the script and let it run for some seconds
3) Stop the request.
4) Shutdown Apache
Maybe these leaks are intentional but thinking that there are
so many leaks makes me think t
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Melvyn Sopacua wrote:
> On Monday 01 December 2003 23:27, Derick Rethans wrote:
>
> > > I don't quite understand the problem. E_STRICT was only meant for people
> > > who really want to be pedantic. I think we can make it not part of E_ALL.
> > > Is that OK?
> >
> > SOunds good
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:56:53 +0200 (EET)
Jani Taskinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Antony Dovgal wrote:
>
> >BTW, I've already asked about this message:
> >
> >buildconf: autoconf version 2.50 (ok)
> >buildconf: Your version of autoconf likely contains buggy cache code.
>
I reverted this. We usually discuss changes like these before committing.
(on [EMAIL PROTECTED] so people not on IRC will know too)
Some reason why not do this like you did:
1) It doesn't work with windows
2) What if I have local changes and want to run ./cvsclean
For the next 18-24 months, we are going to have to deal with code
running in both PHP 4 and 5. Why not declare "var" an alias for
"public", not throw E_STRICT for it and be done with it? If not this
issue will be a real PITA for PEAR users.
- Stig
On Sun, 2003-11-30 at 00:10, Andi Gutmans wrot
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 09:10:49 +0200 (EET)
Jani Taskinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Antony Dovgal wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:51:59 +0100
> >Sebastian Bergmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Jani Taskinen wrote:
> >> > Was there some script to go with this..?
> >>
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:12:38 +0100 (CET)
Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Reverting your patch fixes the problem, cause the problem seems to be in header
> > parsing routines.
> > Again, the problem is definitely in this patch.
>
> Hmm, interesting. But I'll need to have abetter 'bug
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Antony Dovgal wrote:
>On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:51:59 +0100
>Sebastian Bergmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Jani Taskinen wrote:
>> > Was there some script to go with this..?
>>
>> Maybe this is related to the problem with PHP's logos I posted earlier?
>
>I suppose no.
>'ca
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:51:59 +0100
Sebastian Bergmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jani Taskinen wrote:
> > Was there some script to go with this..?
>
> Maybe this is related to the problem with PHP's logos I posted earlier?
I suppose no.
'cause this problem appears with _any_ script.
---
WBR
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:46:38 +0200 (EET)
Jani Taskinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >It still tries to eat memory =(
>
> Was there some script to go with this..?
or
it doesn't matter, cause it seems to be happening on the stage of parsing ENV or
SERVER variables.
> >gcc-2.96
>
> T
68 matches
Mail list logo
