At 10:27 31.10.2003, Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 11:07 PM 10/30/2003 -0400, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
On October 30, 2003 05:48 pm, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Yeah, I also thought of that but I don't really want to do run-time
checks.
> It is a possibility though.
If it is done once during startup, the 'harm
At 11:07 PM 10/30/2003 -0400, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
On October 30, 2003 05:48 pm, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Yeah, I also thought of that but I don't really want to do run-time checks.
> It is a possibility though.
If it is done once during startup, the 'harm' should be minimal and in vast
majority of
$ partners...
-Original Message-
From: Steph [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 31 October 2003 02:58
To: Uwe Schindler; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] BUG #18630
I just started a post-grad course.
The majority of the network I deal with here day-in-day-out is NT4.0
and yeah tha
On October 30, 2003 05:48 pm, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Yeah, I also thought of that but I don't really want to do run-time checks.
> It is a possibility though.
If it is done once during startup, the 'harm' should be minimal and in vast
majority of cases performance on win32 is not really that much
TECTED]
> Sent: 30 October 2003 22:01
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] BUG #18630
>
>
> You can also check vor availability of this single function with
> GetProcAddress(GetModuleHandle("kernel32.dll"),"funcname") and use the
> pointer from
At 11:01 PM 10/30/2003 +0100, Uwe Schindler wrote:
You can also check vor availability of this single function with
GetProcAddress(GetModuleHandle("kernel32.dll"),"funcname") and use the
pointer from there if not NULL. If this is the only unknown function in
Win95/NT4 then we should not boot out
You can also check vor availability of this single function with
GetProcAddress(GetModuleHandle("kernel32.dll"),"funcname") and use the
pointer from there if not NULL. If this is the only unknown function in
Win95/NT4 then we should not boot out all people because of a single
function. That con
At 09:10 PM 10/30/2003 +0100, Marcus Börger wrote:
>>"Andi Gutmans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Argh, this only works on Windows 2000 and later or Windows 98 and later.
>>> I guess I'll need to #ifdef it somehow. Anyway, I'd still like you to
check
>>> it as I
Hello Jani,
Thursday, October 30, 2003, 7:35:48 PM, you wrote:
> Yes, the fix was put into PHP 5 branch.
> You tried the wrong snapshots.
> --Jani
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Pete Dishman wrote:
>>Sorry CVS is a bit of a mystery to me, but I tried
>>php-4-win32-STABLE-20031030053
Yes, the fix was put into PHP 5 branch.
You tried the wrong snapshots.
--Jani
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Pete Dishman wrote:
>Sorry CVS is a bit of a mystery to me, but I tried
>php-4-win32-STABLE-200310300530.zip from snaps.php.net which didn't work, so
>I then tried php4-200310300
After discussing this with some people I decided to #ifdef this code for
beta 2.
We need to decide after beta 2 if we want to fix this bug and not
officially support Win95 and NT 4 anymore or not. (I think WIn95 doesn't
work anymore but NT 4 does).
The main problem is that today, and I suspect i
Sorry CVS is a bit of a mystery to me, but I tried
php-4-win32-STABLE-200310300530.zip from snaps.php.net which didn't work, so
I then tried php4-200310300830.tar.gz and built it. There was a link error
relating to php_check_open_basedir_ex() but after working round that the
test still didn't work
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] BUG #18630
> I got 4.3.3 to work on win95 ok... (support of 95 is kind of essential
> for php-gtk) as _alot_ of offices are still using it.. - If all the user
> does is type up letters+print docume
I got 4.3.3 to work on win95 ok... (support of 95 is kind of essential
for php-gtk) as _alot_ of offices are still using it.. - If all the user
does is type up letters+print documents, where's the cost/benefit in
upgrading.. :)
Regards
Alan
Edin Kadribasic wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Andi Gutm
Frank M. Kromann wrote:
hmm. I'm using php 4.3.3-dev with imap on Windows 2000 server and XP Pro.
That works fine for me.
NT = NT 4.0. Right?
What changed since 4.2 that broke compatibility? Would it be easy to add
it back? Or is 4.0 too old to maintain it? If it's trivial...
Oliver
--
GB/E/IT d
>
> PHP doesn't work on Windows 95 as of 4.3.0, and NT support is becoming
> incomplete (ext/imap for example does not work on NT).
>
hmm. I'm using php 4.3.3-dev with imap on Windows 2000 server and XP Pro.
That works fine for me.
- Frank
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing Li
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Argh, this only works on Windows 2000 and later or Windows 98 and later.
> I guess I'll need to #ifdef it somehow. Anyway, I'd still like you to check
> it as I assume you're not using Windows 95 or NT 4 :)
PHP doesn't work on Windows 95 as of 4.3.0, an
Argh, this only works on Windows 2000 and later or Windows 98 and later.
I guess I'll need to #ifdef it somehow. Anyway, I'd still like you to check
it as I assume you're not using Windows 95 or NT 4 :)
Andi
At 11:31 PM 10/29/2003 +0200, Andi Gutmans wrote:
Okay, it should work now. Please check
Okay, it should work now. Please check and let me know.
Andi
At 11:17 PM 10/29/2003 +0200, Andi Gutmans wrote:
Forget it. I screwed up. It doesn't work yet.
At 11:12 PM 10/29/2003 +0200, Andi Gutmans wrote:
Hey,
I might have fixed this. Can you please check the latest CVS and let me
know if it
Forget it. I screwed up. It doesn't work yet.
At 11:12 PM 10/29/2003 +0200, Andi Gutmans wrote:
Hey,
I might have fixed this. Can you please check the latest CVS and let me
know if it works for you?
Thanks,
Andi
At 03:36 PM 10/29/2003 +, Pete Dishman wrote:
Hi,
The fact that require_once
Hey,
I might have fixed this. Can you please check the latest CVS and let me
know if it works for you?
Thanks,
Andi
At 03:36 PM 10/29/2003 +, Pete Dishman wrote:
Hi,
The fact that require_once()/include_once() are case-sensitive on Windows
was reported in bug 18630 http://bugs.php.net/bug
At 12:16 PM 10/29/2003 -0500, Adam Trachtenberg wrote:
On Wednesday, October 29, 2003, at 11:39 AM, Andi Gutmans wrote:
Is it case-preserving like Windows? Does realpath work on MAC OS X and
give the case preserved name?
I don't have easy access to a Windows machine to test, but I think the
answ
On Wednesday, October 29, 2003, at 11:39 AM, Andi Gutmans wrote:
Is it case-preserving like Windows? Does realpath work on MAC OS X and
give the case preserved name?
I don't have easy access to a Windows machine to test, but I think the
answer is yes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/Documents/php/test] $ l
At 11:35 AM 10/29/2003 -0500, Adam Maccabee Trachtenberg wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> No I was not thinking about lower casing (although that is an option). I
> was wondering if it's possible to do something like realpath() in Windows
> which gives you the pretty name (the cas
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> No I was not thinking about lower casing (although that is an option). I
> was wondering if it's possible to do something like realpath() in Windows
> which gives you the pretty name (the case preserving name). We could then
> use that and it would look g
At 05:15 PM 10/29/2003 +0100, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> At 04:02 PM 10/29/2003 +, Peter Dishman wrote:
> > > How is this a BUG? It's just a feature on windows where you have
> > > case-insensitive filenames. I fyou want to handle that, just use one
> > >
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> At 04:02 PM 10/29/2003 +, Peter Dishman wrote:
> > > How is this a BUG? It's just a feature on windows where you have
> > > case-insensitive filenames. I fyou want to handle that, just use one
> > > style in your code (ie, always lower case).
> >
> >I
At 04:02 PM 10/29/2003 +, Peter Dishman wrote:
> How is this a BUG? It's just a feature on windows where you have
> case-insensitive filenames. I fyou want to handle that, just use one
> style in your code (ie, always lower case).
I take it then this is unlikely to change in the future? Fair en
> How is this a BUG? It's just a feature on windows where you have
> case-insensitive filenames. I fyou want to handle that, just use one
> style in your code (ie, always lower case).
I take it then this is unlikely to change in the future? Fair enough I
suppose.
However if I create a patch/dif
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Pete Dishman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The fact that require_once()/include_once() are case-sensitive on Windows
> was reported in bug 18630 http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=18630 , however the
> bug was then just closed as a documentation problem and nothing was changed,
> which is why
Hi,
The fact that require_once()/include_once() are case-sensitive on Windows
was reported in bug 18630 http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=18630 , however the
bug was then just closed as a documentation problem and nothing was changed,
which is why I'm sending this here rather than adding to the bug r
31 matches
Mail list logo
