On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Brian J. France wrote:
Looks like there might be some problems with your patch to phpize.in for
lines:
+ if ! test -x "$php_shtool path $PHP_AUTOCONF"; then
and
+ if ! test -x "$php_shtool path $PHP_AUTOHEADER"; then
shouldn't those double quotes be back-ticks?
Actually
Looks like there might be some problems with your patch to phpize.in
for lines:
+ if ! test -x "$php_shtool path $PHP_AUTOCONF"; then
and
+ if ! test -x "$php_shtool path $PHP_AUTOHEADER"; then
shouldn't those double quotes be back-ticks?
Also echo and here documents are not working on my syste
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Brian J. France wrote:
On Apr 7, 2005, at 1:28 AM, Jani Taskinen wrote:
I made some changes to phpize now. But not using your
patch since that would not have worked everywhere.
Cool, changes look good. What about getting Jon's original patch and this
change back ported
On Apr 7, 2005, at 1:28 AM, Jani Taskinen wrote:
I made some changes to phpize now. But not using your
patch since that would not have worked everywhere.
Cool, changes look good. What about getting Jon's original patch and
this change back ported?
Searching for these tools is _still_
I made some changes to phpize now. But not using your
patch since that would not have worked everywhere.
Searching for these tools is _still_ a big no no.
Just make sure they're in PATH.
--Jani
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, Brian J. France wrote:
Ok, lets try this:
http://www.brianfrance.
Ok, lets try this:
http://www.brianfrance.com/patch.build
Brian
On Apr 6, 2005, at 7:19 PM, Brian J. France wrote:
On Apr 4, 2005, at 12:35 AM, Jon Parise wrote:
Apologies if this got lost amongst the effort to prepare the recent
set of releases, but I'm curious whether or not people find my second
On Apr 4, 2005, at 12:35 AM, Jon Parise wrote:
Apologies if this got lost amongst the effort to prepare the recent
set of releases, but I'm curious whether or not people find my second
patch acceptable, based on the results of the prior discussion. If
not, I'll know to abandon the issue.
Here is a
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:20:17AM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 01:35:37AM -0400, Jon Parise wrote:
> > Index: build/build2.mk
> > ===
> > RCS file: /repository/php-src/build/build2.mk,v
> > retrieving revision 1.
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 01:35:37AM -0400, Jon Parise wrote:
> Index: build/build2.mk
> ===
> RCS file: /repository/php-src/build/build2.mk,v
> retrieving revision 1.35
> diff -u -r1.35 build2.mk
> --- build/build2.mk 3 Feb 2005 17:42
The patch is fine by me. It's very good idea too since
it's not likely to break anyone's build whatever versions
they have installed. :)
Just commit. (or if you can't, I'll do it later today)
--Jani
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Jon Parise wrote:
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 10:43:30PM -0500,
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 10:43:30PM -0500, Jon Parise wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 04:15:38PM +0300, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>
> > > Such schemes are quite common thanks to incompatibilities between
> > > autotools versions, e. g. Subversion's buildconf equivalent accepts
> > > the names fr
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 04:15:38PM +0300, Jani Taskinen wrote:
> > Such schemes are quite common thanks to incompatibilities between
> > autotools versions, e. g. Subversion's buildconf equivalent accepts
> > the names from environment, mentioning IIRC Debian installing the
> > tools as e.
Yes, use different install prefixes.
/opt/autoconfX.XX
/opt/autoconfY.YY
And add the suitable prefix to your PATH.
But don't change the names of the utilities..
- Sascha
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2005-03-29 16:46:37 +0200:
The way
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2005-03-29 16:46:37 +0200:
> The way some systems start to treat autoconf (installing
> multiple versions in an absolutely braindamaged way) is not
> something we should support.
>
> I suggest whoever is bothered by FreeBSD doing stupid things
> should go
The way some systems start to treat autoconf (installing
multiple versions in an absolutely braindamaged way) is not
something we should support.
I suggest whoever is bothered by FreeBSD doing stupid things
should go to the ports maintainer and complain to him.
- Sascha
--
P
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2005-03-29 15:24:07 +0300:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2005-03-29 11:11:27 +0300:
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, Jon Parise wrote:
The attached patch allows PHP's build system to recognize FreeBSD's
"versi
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2005-03-29 15:24:07 +0300:
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
>
> ># [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2005-03-29 11:11:27 +0300:
> >>On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, Jon Parise wrote:
> >>
> >>>The attached patch allows PHP's build system to recognize FreeBSD's
> >>>"versioned" autoconf po
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2005-03-29 11:11:27 +0300:
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, Jon Parise wrote:
The attached patch allows PHP's build system to recognize FreeBSD's
"versioned" autoconf ports without the need for system-level symlinks
or similar aliasing. It uses
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2005-03-29 11:11:27 +0300:
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, Jon Parise wrote:
>
> >The attached patch allows PHP's build system to recognize FreeBSD's
> >"versioned" autoconf ports without the need for system-level symlinks
> >or similar aliasing. It uses 'shtool path' to (attempt to)
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, Jon Parise wrote:
The attached patch allows PHP's build system to recognize FreeBSD's
"versioned" autoconf ports without the need for system-level symlinks
or similar aliasing. It uses 'shtool path' to (attempt to) locate the
appropriate autoconf / autoheader executable.
I
The attached patch allows PHP's build system to recognize FreeBSD's
"versioned" autoconf ports without the need for system-level symlinks
or similar aliasing. It uses 'shtool path' to (attempt to) locate the
appropriate autoconf / autoheader executable.
I noticed that Jani did a bit of work earli
21 matches
Mail list logo
