On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 09:00:24 -0500, Rob Richards
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And for RHEL customers. They can always grab the rpms from xmlsoft. I
> would assume - but not guarantee :) - the rpms are built against that
> since Daniel is an employee of RedHat.
RHEL 4 (released today) ships libxml
Just to clarify soap. Soap will work under 2.6.0. I still have 2.6.3
stuck in my head, but it may just be due to the fact that the windows
build system is messed up for the early versions (can't really remember
why I think 2.6.3 as a minimum version though).
I don't mind the ifdef'ing as much a
On 15.2.2005 2:37 Uhr, Wez Furlong wrote:
I was talking with George about this at lunch today. If we really
really do require the new version, then we should add a configure
check to enforce it, otherwise we should use appropriate #ifdefs.
The configure check was always in place (even during php
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Wez Furlong wrote:
> I was talking with George about this at lunch today. If we really
> really do require the new version, then we should add a configure
> check to enforce it, otherwise we should use appropriate #ifdefs.
Agreed. If we're requiring it, we need to modify the
I was talking with George about this at lunch today. If we really
really do require the new version, then we should add a configure
check to enforce it, otherwise we should use appropriate #ifdefs.
Why?
Everytime we go to upgrade PHP, we find that we need to upgrade
libxml2 as well. While it's
Andi Gutmans wrote:
What's the status of 2.6.x in Linux distributions? Is it already
standard in the latest SUSE/Redhat distros?
SuSE 8.1: libxml2-2.4.23
SuSE 8.2: libxml2-2.5.3
SuSE 9.0: libxml2-2.5.10
SuSE 9.1: libxml2-2.6.7
SuSE 9.2: libxml2-2.6.12
I'd say that at least SuSE 8.2 and 9.0 are sti
What's the status of 2.6.x in Linux distributions? Is it already standard
in the latest SUSE/Redhat distros?
Andi
At 12:34 PM 2/13/2005 -0500, Adam Maccabee Trachtenberg wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, Christian Stocker wrote:
> Which is still less than 2.5.11, which is required for 5.0. Therefore
>
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, Christian Stocker wrote:
> Which is still less than 2.5.11, which is required for 5.0. Therefore
> Debian Stable people had to face this problem already with 5.0 ;)
Fair enough. Asking people to upgrade to 2.6.x vs 2.5.11 is minor.
-adam
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.t
On 13.2.2005 18:19 Uhr, Adam Maccabee Trachtenberg wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, Christian Stocker wrote:
There are new features in 5.1, which only run with 2.6 (the new error
handling system, for example, or proper namespace support for SAX).
Those are currently ifdef'd, but it definitively would
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, Christian Stocker wrote:
> There are new features in 5.1, which only run with 2.6 (the new error
> handling system, for example, or proper namespace support for SAX).
> Those are currently ifdef'd, but it definitively would make the life of
> the XML maintainers a lot easier,
Hi
Anyone against requiring libxml2 2.6.x for PHP 5.1?
There are new features in 5.1, which only run with 2.6 (the new error
handling system, for example, or proper namespace support for SAX).
Those are currently ifdef'd, but it definitively would make the life of
the XML maintainers a lot easie
11 matches
Mail list logo
