On Sat, 5 Apr 2003, Marcus Börger wrote:
>At 19:48 05.04.2003, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>>On Sat, 5 Apr 2003, Marcus Börger wrote:
>>
>> >I just noticed the fact that --enable-all also works for all --with-xyz by
>> >being mailed about it. IMHO there should be an --with-all. This because
>> >we have a
At 20:11 05.04.2003, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> Jani, IMO --enable-all is a good thing but it shouldn't apply to --with
> extensions. So perhaps we should have an undocumented --with-all
> and make --enable-all what it is supposed to.
--with-all is rather unrealistic, isn't it? Some of the --with fla
> Jani, IMO --enable-all is a good thing but it shouldn't apply to --with
> extensions. So perhaps we should have an undocumented --with-all
> and make --enable-all what it is supposed to.
--with-all is rather unrealistic, isn't it? Some of the --with flags are
mutually exclusive as well so you c
At 19:48 05.04.2003, Jani Taskinen wrote:
On Sat, 5 Apr 2003, Marcus Börger wrote:
>I just noticed the fact that --enable-all also works for all --with-xyz by
>being mailed about it. IMHO there should be an --with-all. This because
>we have a clear difference between --enable-xy and --with-xy. Thi
On Sat, 5 Apr 2003, Marcus Börger wrote:
>I just noticed the fact that --enable-all also works for all --with-xyz by
>being mailed about it. IMHO there should be an --with-all. This because
>we have a clear difference between --enable-xy and --with-xy. This
>difference should hold for --enable-all
I just noticed the fact that --enable-all also works for all --with-xyz by
being mailed about it. IMHO there should be an --with-all. This because
we have a clear difference between --enable-xy and --with-xy. This
difference should hold for --enable-all, too.
regards
marcus
--
PHP Internals - PHP R
