On Sat, 3 Apr 2004, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> Given our history with bundled libraries (gd, expat, sqlite, etc...)
> we always tend to lag (often quite a bit) behind the official stable
> release even if we do sync the libraries relatively frequently the
> release cycle of the libraries themselves
It doesn't have to be in the main CVS but it should be in some CVS so that
we can do the necessary tag and know which version went into which PHP
version. It's much cleaner than taking whatever version is placed in some
odd dir on snaps.
Andi
At 06:44 PM 4/3/2004 +0100, Wez Furlong wrote:
I'll
I'll avoid the actual issue here, and just say that keeping tarballs
in our CVS is something to avoid (we can keep them elsewhere and stick
them in our distro if/when appropriate).
--Wez.
> We'd need to have someone who'll maintain this by probably having a stable
> libXML2 tarball someplace in o
At 12:37 PM 4/3/2004 -0500, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
On April 3, 2004 12:05 pm, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> We'd need to have someone who'll maintain this by probably having a stable
> libXML2 tarball someplace in our CVS, and then change makedist to create
> the two packages (one with and one without lib
On April 3, 2004 12:05 pm, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> We'd need to have someone who'll maintain this by probably having a stable
> libXML2 tarball someplace in our CVS, and then change makedist to create
> the two packages (one with and one without libXML2). This should make
> everyone happy as long as
We'd need to have someone who'll maintain this by probably having a stable
libXML2 tarball someplace in our CVS, and then change makedist to create
the two packages (one with and one without libXML2). This should make
everyone happy as long as it's properly maintained.
Andi
At 01:29 PM 4/2/200
Did we ever come to a conclusion whether we're going to provide a
version of PHP 5 that bundles libxml2?
Now that we're in RC, I think we should aim to produce packages that
are as identical to the final release as possible, so we don't end up
with any unexpected surprises later on in the process.
> We have no intentions to become maintainers of a different codebase,
> integrating libxml into the PHP distribution is a completely separate
> issue. Please read the archives.
This message must have been stuck in my queue, because i sent this
Friday. It's outdated, and as far as I care is a d
At 00:16 28/06/2003, John Coggeshall wrote:
On Fri, 2003-06-27 at 13:08, Sterling Hughes wrote:
> Because, this will encourage people to do :
>
> --without-xml
>
> Instead of upgrading the system libxml2.
If someone actually *needs* XML support for whatever they are doing, and
they have absolutely
On Fri, 2003-06-27 at 13:08, Sterling Hughes wrote:
> Because, this will encourage people to do :
>
> --without-xml
>
> Instead of upgrading the system libxml2.
If someone actually *needs* XML support for whatever they are doing, and
they have absolutely no option but to upgrade libxml2, they'll
On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 12:25:39PM -0400, Sterling Hughes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> So I figure I'll restart this discussion. There are a couple of reasons
> I want to bundle libxml2:
>
> 1) XML support is crucial. You may not like XML, but its the standard
> for data exchange these days, and is incredi
On 27 Jun 2003 12:25:39 -0400
Sterling Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> So I figure I'll restart this discussion. There are a couple of reasons
> I want to bundle libxml2:
>
> 1) XML support is crucial. You may not like XML, but its the standard
> for data exchange these days, and
Remember the issues with --with-mysql and some third
party library linking with external libs..?
--Jani
On 27 Jun 2003, Sterling Hughes wrote:
>Because, this will encourage people to do :
>
>--without-xml
>
>Instead of upgrading the system libxml2.
>
>-Sterling
>
>On Fri,
I definitely think we should give it a try! +1 for bundling.
Andi
At 12:25 PM 27/6/2003 -0400, Sterling Hughes wrote:
Hi,
So I figure I'll restart this discussion. There are a couple of reasons
I want to bundle libxml2:
1) XML support is crucial. You may not like XML, but its the standard
for
Anil Madhavapeddy wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 01:08:08PM -0400, Sterling Hughes wrote:
> > Because, this will encourage people to do :
> >
> > --without-xml
> >
> > Instead of upgrading the system libxml2.
>
> If your first argument about the utter importance of XML/PHP is true, then
> I'm s
On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 01:08:08PM -0400, Sterling Hughes wrote:
> Because, this will encourage people to do :
>
> --without-xml
>
> Instead of upgrading the system libxml2.
If your first argument about the utter importance of XML/PHP is true, then
I'm sure they won't mind updating their system
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, Sterling Hughes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> So I figure I'll restart this discussion. There are a couple of reasons
> I want to bundle libxml2:
>
> 1) XML support is crucial. You may not like XML, but its the standard
> for data exchange these days, and is incredibly important when
> i
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, Sterling Hughes wrote:
> Because, this will encourage people to do :
>
> --without-xml
>
> Instead of upgrading the system libxml2.
>
So you are forcing users and installations to use xml when they might not
want to upgrade their libxml? This seems like a rather wrong way to
From: Sterling Hughes
> Hi,
>
> So I figure I'll restart this discussion. There are a couple of reasons
> I want to bundle libxml2:
>From yesterday's thread on this, I thought the plan was to bundle for the
initital beta and see how it goes. Has that plan been scrapped?
Rob
--
PHP Inte
Because, this will encourage people to do :
--without-xml
Instead of upgrading the system libxml2.
-Sterling
On Fri, 2003-06-27 at 13:04, Anil Madhavapeddy wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 12:25:39PM -0400, Sterling Hughes wrote:
> >
> > 2) Libxml2 may be installed everywhere, but the version
On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 12:25:39PM -0400, Sterling Hughes wrote:
>
> 2) Libxml2 may be installed everywhere, but the version we rely upon
> isn't available everywhere. As witnessed by a message to the list by
> michael, and a problem that someone else had over IRC. Its fine to
> allow people to
On 27 Jun 2003, Sterling Hughes wrote:
>Hi,
>
>So I figure I'll restart this discussion. There are a couple of reasons
>I want to bundle libxml2:
>
>1) XML support is crucial. You may not like XML, but its the standard
>for data exchange these days, and is incredibly important when
>interoperati
Hi,
So I figure I'll restart this discussion. There are a couple of reasons
I want to bundle libxml2:
1) XML support is crucial. You may not like XML, but its the standard
for data exchange these days, and is incredibly important when
interoperating with external services. A PHP installation s
23 matches
Mail list logo
