On 22.01.2008 04:17, Lucas Nealan wrote:
> Yeah, it seems that the rub is depending on the context building them
> dynamically might make sense, it all depends of if you want or need the
> dependant functionality to work. I'm not adamant about making these build
> dynamically, I can always get them
On 1/21/08 2:33 PM, "Antony Dovgal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 22.01.2008 01:07, Lucas Nealan wrote:
>> There is only one extension with config9.m4, the recode extension and it
>> appears to be using this expressly outside of the context of phpize however
>> it is not problematic to include th
On 22.01.2008 01:07, Lucas Nealan wrote:
> There is only one extension with config9.m4, the recode extension and it
> appears to be using this expressly outside of the context of phpize however
> it is not problematic to include this. The other four extensions only have a
> config0.m4. Do we prefer
> On 21.01.2008 14:06, Lucas Nealan wrote:
>> I found out the hard way that phpize won't build some extensions like
>> ext/openssl because they have no config.m4, only a config0.m4. I could not
>> find a reason why this shouldn't work and propose the patch below for phpize
>> to support config0.m4
On 21.01.2008 14:06, Lucas Nealan wrote:
> I found out the hard way that phpize won't build some extensions like
> ext/openssl because they have no config.m4, only a config0.m4. I could not
> find a reason why this shouldn't work and propose the patch below for phpize
> to support config0.m4 as wel
I found out the hard way that phpize won't build some extensions like
ext/openssl because they have no config.m4, only a config0.m4. I could not
find a reason why this shouldn't work and propose the patch below for phpize
to support config0.m4 as well as config9.m4.
This will generate a standalone
