Are there any final thoughts, objections, last-minute change requests,
etc? Looks like we're all pretty much in agreement so I'll initiate the
vote if I don't hear anything.
--Kris
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
> Hmm didn't know that. I stand corrected!
>
> That being sa
Hmm didn't know that. I stand corrected!
That being said, unless we're talking about dropping the configure script
altogether in favor of reliance on RPM's and repos, this RFC is still a
no-brainer. =)
--Kris
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Gergo Erdosi wrote:
> No, you don't. Since CentOS
No, you don't. Since CentOS 5.6, PHP 5.3 is part of the base
repository. You are right, "yum install php" installs 5.1, but you
don't have to download anything to install 5.3, just type "yum install
php53".
Gergo Erdosi
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:06 AM, Kris Craig wrote:
> Yes but you have to d
Yes but you have to download those RPM's manually. If you just use the
default repo (i.e. "yum install php") as most sysadmins do, you're gonna
get something MUCH older than that. Plus there are still occasions where a
manual build is preferable to using an RPM.
--Kris
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
> I've got a CentOS 5.7 VM running at work and the PHP package returned by
> yum is 5.1.6. Don't have my Ubuntu box with me at the moment but I'm
> pretty sure it's 5.1.x as well.
>
> You probably have rpmforge or CentALT enabled and that's whe
I've got a CentOS 5.7 VM running at work and the PHP package returned by
yum is 5.1.6. Don't have my Ubuntu box with me at the moment but I'm
pretty sure it's 5.1.x as well.
You probably have rpmforge or CentALT enabled and that's where it's pulling
the newer build. But even then, the latest one
>
>
> @Lester Generally, this is a problem that surfaces in manual PHP builds.
> You're correct in that the packaged repos tend to handle all that stuff for
> you anyway. However, these repos are rarely updated (I think CentOS and
> Ubuntu are both still stuck on 5.1), so it's often necessary to b
Kris Craig wrote:
@Lester Generally, this is a problem that surfaces in manual PHP builds.
You're correct in that the packaged repos tend to handle all that stuff for
you anyway. However, these repos are rarely updated (I think CentOS and
Ubuntu are both still stuck on 5.1), so it's often necess
@Richard I think, briefly, something like that was implemented. However,
it was reverted soon after because it changed the default behavior of
configure. This was discovered to be a problem after people realized that,
if -a is not specified, APXS will not only skip writing the LoadModule
line, bu
On Fri, February 24, 2012 6:14 pm, Kris Craig wrote:
> No, it happens and it's even clearly documented in APXS.
>
> Basically, if you specify the "-a" option in APXS, it overwrites your
> httpd.conf (or apache.conf or whatever it is on your system) and adds
> the
> LoadModule line to it. In PHP's
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 2:27 AM, Kris Craig wrote:
> Ok, I've updated the RFC based on input received here. I also made a
> decision on the APXS vs. APXS2 question; please refer to the RFC for
> details. If anybody has any objections to this decision, now would be the
> time to say something!
>
Kris Craig wrote:
Ok, I've updated the RFC based on input received here. I also made a
decision on the APXS vs. APXS2 question; please refer to the RFC for
details. If anybody has any objections to this decision, now would be the
time to say something!
I've targetted this for 5.4.1 so this won
Ok, I've updated the RFC based on input received here. I also made a
decision on the APXS vs. APXS2 question; please refer to the RFC for
details. If anybody has any objections to this decision, now would be the
time to say something!
I've targetted this for 5.4.1 so this won't have any bearing
Oh ok, I think I see where you're getting confused.
This problem occurs when your LoadModule statement is in a *separate* .conf
file; i.e. using the "Include" statement. APXS cannot detect this and just
sticks a LoadModule into the main .conf file. This is what causes the
duplication. It's a ve
On 02/24/2012 04:14 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
No, it happens and it's even clearly documented in APXS.
Basically, if you specify the "-a" option in APXS, it overwrites your
httpd.conf (or apache.conf or whatever it is on your system) and adds the
LoadModule line to it. In PHP's configure script,
No, it happens and it's even clearly documented in APXS.
Basically, if you specify the "-a" option in APXS, it overwrites your
httpd.conf (or apache.conf or whatever it is on your system) and adds the
LoadModule line to it. In PHP's configure script, you'll notice that "-a"
is always specified; t
On 02/24/2012 03:54 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
LoadModule clashes still happen in the current releases. I haven't
tested it on 5.5-dev but it definitely exists on 5.3.x. I have yet
to test it on 5.4 but I'm not aware of any changes there that
would've affected this. So this is an existing problem,
Yeah since we pretty much rely on APXS to do the httpd.conf stuff, we're
really limited in terms of what we can do. That is, unless we want to
start manually doing this in the configure script in lieu of APXS, though
I'm not sure that would be worth the trouble and the overhead.
LoadModule clashe
On 02/24/2012 02:38 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
Thanks for the input! You're right, I'll go ahead and clarify that in the
RFC.
I'll probably initiate voting on Monday unless something changes between
now and then.
--Kris
The real issue with the PHP install is that it doesn't add "AddType"
or "Se
On 02/24/2012 02:38 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
Thanks for the input! You're right, I'll go ahead and clarify that in the
RFC.
I'll probably initiate voting on Monday unless something changes between
now and then.
--Kris
Re https://wiki.php.net/rfc/apxs-loadmodule
The RFC needs more work before
Thanks for the input! You're right, I'll go ahead and clarify that in the
RFC.
I'll probably initiate voting on Monday unless something changes between
now and then.
--Kris
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Richard Lynch wrote:
> On Mon, February 20, 2012 7:02 pm, Kris Craig wrote:
> > Openin
On Mon, February 20, 2012 7:02 pm, Kris Craig wrote:
> Opening discussion on RFC pertaining to adding a new option to the
> configure script with regard to how/whether APXS touches the
> httpd.conf
> file.
>
> This is my first RFC post so please go easy on me if I screwed-up on
> procedure in any w
Any further thoughts on this?
--Kris
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
> @Johannes Agreed. That was one of the reasons I decided to make the
> existing behavior (i.e. "-a") the default.
>
> I haven't independently confirmed that issue in APXS but I have heard it
> mentioned b
@Johannes Agreed. That was one of the reasons I decided to make the
existing behavior (i.e. "-a") the default.
I haven't independently confirmed that issue in APXS but I have heard it
mentioned before; I'll test it myself when I get home just to make sure,
since the APXS docs are a bit vague on t
Hi,
On Mon, 2012-02-20 at 17:02 -0800, Kris Craig wrote:
> Opening discussion on RFC pertaining to adding a new option to the
> configure script with regard to how/whether APXS touches the httpd.conf
> file.
>
> This is my first RFC post so please go easy on me if I screwed-up on
> procedure in a
Kris Craig writes:
> Opening discussion on RFC pertaining to adding a new option to the
> configure script with regard to how/whether APXS touches the httpd.conf
> file.
>
> This is my first RFC post so please go easy on me if I screwed-up on
> procedure in any way. =)
>
>
> Here it is: https:/
Opening discussion on RFC pertaining to adding a new option to the
configure script with regard to how/whether APXS touches the httpd.conf
file.
This is my first RFC post so please go easy on me if I screwed-up on
procedure in any way. =)
Here it is: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/apxs-loadmodule
T
27 matches
Mail list logo
