ll.dll' to php.ini-* files
Thanks in advance,
Vlad
Vlad Krupin wrote:
Hi, internals,
I need some help with my attempt to provide win32 port for the
spellchecker (pspell extension). Since I am pretty ignorant as far as
win32 goes, can some kind win32 guru answer this?:
1. The s
Hi, internals,
I need some help with my attempt to provide win32 port for the
spellchecker (pspell extension). Since I am pretty ignorant as far as
win32 goes, can some kind win32 guru answer this?:
1. The spellchecker has dictionaries that are located somewhere on the
system and there is a re
Edin Kadribasic wrote:
Hi Vlad,
1. Where can I get includes and libs for MSVC++?
http://aspell.net/win32/files/aspell-dev-0-50-3-3.zip
It has both the headers and the library. Just uncompress it into the
same directory where 'php-src' is located, and then rename the directory
to 'aspell' (I foll
e to be in win32 snapshots and
ultimately in a release though.
Vlad
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
Vald,
If you want it to be part of the 4.3.3 release, you need to backport your
changed to PHP_4_3 branch.
Ilia
On August 13, 2003 03:19 pm, Vlad Krupin wrote:
Ok, looks like all win32 experts are on vaca
[snip]
I use redhat 9 and 5.0, be sure to configure
--with-kerberos=/usr/kerberos
Kevin
I just tried this after doing a cvsclean and ./buildconf and ./configure
same problem. My configure line is
As far as I know, --with-kerberos does not have any effect if you do not
compile PHP with imap
Kevin Waterson wrote:
This one time, at band camp, walt boring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am trying to compile the latest PHP5 from CVS w/ openssl support, and
it bails looking for krb.h. I have
a RedHat9 box. Below is the output. I have this same issue with
compiling php 4.3.2. I usua
That's a known problem on redhat9 - kerberos include files are in
/usr/kerberos/include, which is not in your include path. You have to
tweak it by hand to make PHP compile with openssl on redhat9.
PHP is not alone - any application that needs to be compiled against
openssl on a redhat9 box wil
couple reasons not to change that:
- if a post has survived for such a long time, it's probably valuable.
If not, it needs to be deleted rather than moved to the bottom of the
pile. Also, if it's good, it should probably be added to documentation
(and if it's at the top, it'll keep bugging devel
