Hi Guys,
Now most people seem to be back and over their new year's hangovers I'd
like to jump start RC1.
As discussed, we should start the process of cleaning up for RC1. I think
we should try and target for the end of January.
I suggest each extension maintainer go through his bugs and check to
From: Zeev Suraski
> I've been using static builds of iconv and libxml2 for quite some time.
Do
> you need the .dsp's?
Thanks, but other than the iconv question, libxml is the easy part in all of
this, unless of course you already have iconv being exported from libxml in
the dsp.
I believe Edin
I've been using static builds of iconv and libxml2 for quite some time. Do
you need the .dsp's?
Zeev
At 14:38 19/11/2003, Rob Richards wrote:
From: Edin Kadribasic
> Some major win32 build issues that need to be dealt with before RC1:
>
> 1. php4 -> php5 rename
> 2. bundling of libxml2 and dea
From: Edin Kadribasic
> Do you think you can maintain PHP's binary of libxml that suits our needs
> including the .def file.
Yes, this shouldnt too difficult once I can get the environment setup for
the libxml/libxslt release builds.
> Does any xml we use require libxml2 to be compiled with icon
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 19 November 2003 13:38, Rob Richards wrote:
> All but the iconv linking worked, though to export the libxml2 symbols we
> would need a def file or include all its headers, otherwise only a subset
> get exported which a few functions were
From: Edin Kadribasic
> Some major win32 build issues that need to be dealt with before RC1:
>
> 1. php4 -> php5 rename
> 2. bundling of libxml2 and dealing with linking issues (static vs.
> dynamic)
> 3. getting rid of external dll dependancies (iconv.dll atm) which is
> related to issue (2)
Too
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Analysis & Solutions wrote:
>Hi Jani:
>
>On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 08:42:31PM +0200, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>
>> Last time I checked, you can't run PHP 4 & 5 as DSO on same apache
>> on *nix, at least. (it crashes)
>
>My development setup is PHP as CGI on Apache 1.3.x / Wi
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Cesare D'Amico wrote:
>Alle 19:42, giovedì 13 novembre 2003, Jani Taskinen ha scritto:
>> I made the necessary changes for that to be possible in the config
>> side..
>
>So you managed to run both php4 and php5 as DSO on the same instance of
>the server? How did you do it? (i
Hi Jani:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 08:42:31PM +0200, Jani Taskinen wrote:
> Last time I checked, you can't run PHP 4 & 5 as DSO on same apache
> on *nix, at least. (it crashes)
My development setup is PHP as CGI on Apache 1.3.x / Windows 2000.
Thanks,
--Dan
--
FREE scripts that ma
Alle 19:42, giovedì 13 novembre 2003, Jani Taskinen ha scritto:
> I made the necessary changes for that to be possible in the config
> side..
So you managed to run both php4 and php5 as DSO on the same instance of
the server? How did you do it? (it's really interesting, and it's a
pity that this
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Analysis & Solutions wrote:
>The ability to run two versions at once makes compatibility testing way
>easier for developers making software that uses PHP. For example, during
>the transition from PHP 3 to PHP 4, I had .htm extensions mapped to PHP 3
>and .html extensions mapp
Hi Folks:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 09:26:37AM +0100, Uwe Schindler wrote:
> But the filenames in the win32 distrib are still php4_xxx.dll (see
> snapshot compile log).
This was one thing that concerned me about the new version. It would be
_really_ nice if the PHP 5 DLL's would be given differen
At 03:20 13/11/2003, Shane Caraveo wrote:
Zeev Suraski wrote:
My suggestion - we'll work on fixing ZE2 bugs (*). Fix as many as we can
as soon as possible, and aim to release on Dec 15. Worst case - we'll
delay to Xmas. If enough changes accumulate - we can have B3 too, but
I'm not sure it w
Yes the SAPI codes are changed (php5_execute was my example from NSAPI
SAPI). But the filenames in the win32 distrib are still php4_xxx.dll (see
snapshot compile log).
At 21:49 12.11.2003, you wrote:
Marcus Boerger wrote:
I installed php5 from ./makerpm today and yes i needed to
LoadModule mod_p
Marcus Boerger wrote:
> have some machines that build for the important distributions.
I'm planning to install Fedora in a VMware somewhen soon so I could run
makerpm for this distribution.
--
Sebastian Bergmann
http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ http://phpOpenTracker.de/
Das B
Hello Thies,
Wednesday, November 12, 2003, 9:47:01 PM, you wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 09:44:23PM +0100, Marcus Boerger wrote:
>> Hello Olivier,
>>
>> Wednesday, November 12, 2003, 5:12:37 PM, you wrote:
>>
>> > Uwe Schindler wrote:
>> >> How about function names (in my SAPI module I chang
Hello Zeev,
Wednesday, November 12, 2003, 3:14:27 PM, you wrote:
[...]
> BTW - I agree with Edin about some issues that need to be solved, with the
> most important one IMHO being libxml bundling. In all efforts to avoid a
> thread on this subject of any shape or form - I'd really like to push
Marcus Boerger wrote:
I installed php5 from ./makerpm today and yes i needed to
LoadModule mod_php5 php5_apache.dll (if i were on windows)
Hello Marcus,
Well, that's what I though. IIRC, the last time I tried PHP5 under
Windows, the Apache SAPI code was changed. I was uncertain what Uwe
meant a
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 09:44:23PM +0100, Marcus Boerger wrote:
> Hello Olivier,
>
> Wednesday, November 12, 2003, 5:12:37 PM, you wrote:
>
> > Uwe Schindler wrote:
> >> How about function names (in my SAPI module I changed everything from
> >> for example php4_execute to php5_execute for NSAPI)
Hello Olivier,
Wednesday, November 12, 2003, 5:12:37 PM, you wrote:
> Uwe Schindler wrote:
>> How about function names (in my SAPI module I changed everything from
>> for example php4_execute to php5_execute for NSAPI). How about Apache
>> and the others? Should be there some in-code fixes, too
Zeev Suraski wrote:
My suggestion - we'll work on fixing ZE2 bugs (*). Fix as many as we
can as soon as possible, and aim to release on Dec 15. Worst case -
we'll delay to Xmas. If enough changes accumulate - we can have B3 too,
but I'm not sure it will be necessary, because the betas don't
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>(*) I think many of those are actually old ZE1 bugs that were tested to
>also break ZE2, and given the fact I told Jani that ZE1 bugs are second
>priority, he retagged them as ZE2 bugs. You may have to keep them for
>downwards compatibility ;)
Act
On Nov 12, 2003, at 10:57 AM, Olivier Hill wrote:
Maybe I am mistaken, but I just though of that this morning...
I was reading some slides from Rasmus yesterday, and I was looking at
a graph about Op-Codes compilation/cache. I then asked myself how it
would be done in PHP5.
Pretty much the same
Uwe Schindler wrote:
How about function names (in my SAPI module I changed everything from
for example php4_execute to php5_execute for NSAPI). How about Apache
and the others? Should be there some in-code fixes, too?
You mean like php5_apache.dll should be loaded with a:
LoadModule mod_php5 ph
How about function names (in my SAPI module I changed everything from for
example php4_execute to php5_execute for NSAPI). How about Apache and the
others? Should be there some in-code fixes, too?
At 16:49 12.11.2003, Olivier Hill wrote:
Uwe Schindler wrote:
One important thing before RC1 is to
Zeev Suraski wrote:
Now, while popping mail over a 24,000bps modem in some hotel in Tokyo, I
just saw that Andi suggested that we go for Beta 3 around Nov 30. To be
honest - again, given the relative lack of wide feedback for the betas -
I don't think it will be very beneficial, but I don't thi
Uwe Schindler wrote:
One important thing before RC1 is to fix the libraray filenames on
Windows to be php5.dll. How is the status about that?
I'll do the diff file next Saturday. But we will need to rename some
files in case a "php4..." name doesn't sound right.
Oliver
--
GB/E/IT d+ s+:+ a-- C
One important thing before RC1 is to fix the libraray filenames on Windows
to be php5.dll. How is the status about that?
-
Uwe Schindler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.php.net
NSAPI SAPI developer
Erlangen, Germany
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, vi
At 07:37 12/11/2003, Stig S. Bakken wrote:
Yes, but it's not only the engine that would be going into RC, it's the
entire distribution.
John has a very good point in that some of the changes that people are
looking to PHP 5 for will be extension specific, releasing an RC before
the extensions are m
Hello Andi,
Tuesday, November 11, 2003, 10:23:59 PM, you wrote:
[...]
> I also don't think we should be waiting for new extensions like PDO. It is
> impossible to synchronize with every extension out there. PDO sounds like
> it'll be something really useful, and when it's ready and useful enough
Stig S. Bakken wrote:
> John has a very good point in that some of the changes that people
> are looking to PHP 5 for will be extension specific, releasing an
> RC before the extensions are more or less stable doesn't make sense
> to me.
Also do not forget that PHP 5 currently lacks extensions t
Forgive me for the shameless plug, but since I work for the company who
owns the site I couldn't help but throw in you can always post the new
articles about PHP5 here:
www.devpapers.com
Jeremy
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 06:15, Kevin Waterson wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, "Wolfgang Drews" <[E
Edin Kadribasic wrote:
This was entirely my fault. Any chance of getting an updated diff? And I
promise it will it will not be overlooked this time :)
I don't blame anyone, I just though the patch wasn't welcome.
If you can wait until next Saturday, I'll do my magic again (not
really... maybe mo
On Wednesday, Nov 12, 2003, at 02:21 Europe/Copenhagen, Olivier Hill
wrote:
Edin Kadribasic wrote:
Some major win32 build issues that need to be dealt with before RC1:
1. php4 -> php5 rename
I've submitted different .dsp/.dsw files to fix this problem, and I
even posted a diff file to do the sam
Edin Kadribasic wrote:
Some major win32 build issues that need to be dealt with before RC1:
1. php4 -> php5 rename
I've submitted different .dsp/.dsw files to fix this problem, and I even
posted a diff file to do the same job. No one responded and no one
commited it.
Oliver
--
GB/E/IT d+ s+:+ a
This one time, at band camp, "Wolfgang Drews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> *This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
> > I agree. I think we need to take care of this. I wouldn't count
> > on any one
> > company for this (although this is also important).
> > How
This one time, at band camp, "Wolfgang Drews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> *This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
> > I agree. I think we need to take care of this. I wouldn't count
> > on any one
> > company for this (although this is also important).
> > How
On Tuesday, Nov 11, 2003, at 19:05 Europe/Copenhagen, Andi Gutmans
wrote:
Hey guys,
I think the PHP 5 tree has matured a lot and it's time to release an
RC. I think end of November or mid-December makes sense. I'd like to
aim at the former date.
Are there any major (as in "major") issues which
Derick Rethans wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Shane Caraveo wrote:
Adam Maccabee Trachtenberg wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, John Coggeshall wrote:
I know Shane was working on some major improvements to simplexml that I
don't know if he's finished yet. Sterling didn't seem to have any
interest in
Sorry to interject, but shouldn't the feature set be frozen before
moving to a release candidate? This stage should mean to people that
they can start building software on the new system because all the
features are fixed and are not going to change, even though the system
may still have bugs a
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Shane Caraveo wrote:
> Adam Maccabee Trachtenberg wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, John Coggeshall wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I know Shane was working on some major improvements to simplexml that I
> >>don't know if he's finished yet. Sterling didn't seem to have any
> >>interest
Yes, but it's not only the engine that would be going into RC, it's the
entire distribution.
John has a very good point in that some of the changes that people are
looking to PHP 5 for will be extension specific, releasing an RC before
the extensions are more or less stable doesn't make sense to m
John Coggeshall wrote:
To be honest, I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. Basically, the
engine is done. I think the XML extensions and SQLite are pretty mature,
I know Shane was working on some major improvements to simplexml that I
don't know if he's finished yet. Sterling didn't s
Adam Maccabee Trachtenberg wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, John Coggeshall wrote:
I know Shane was working on some major improvements to simplexml that I
don't know if he's finished yet. Sterling didn't seem to have any
interest in really finishing the code he did write from our
conversations.
I k
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, John Coggeshall wrote:
> I know Shane was working on some major improvements to simplexml that I
> don't know if he's finished yet. Sterling didn't seem to have any
> interest in really finishing the code he did write from our
> conversations.
I know that Shane is also portin
Oh, and let's not forget Pierre's PIMP extension -- anyone who has seen
his code/slides knows that it blows GD out of the water and he's still
cleaning things up there too.
John
On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 17:03, John Coggeshall wrote:
> > To be honest, I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. B
*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
> I agree. I think we need to take care of this. I wouldn't count
> on any one
> company for this (although this is also important).
> How about the people from internals@ who made changes volunteer to write
> about their
> To be honest, I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. Basically, the
> engine is done. I think the XML extensions and SQLite are pretty mature,
I know Shane was working on some major improvements to simplexml that I
don't know if he's finished yet. Sterling didn't seem to have any
inter
At 10:39 PM 11/11/2003 +0100, Wolfgang Drews wrote:
*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
Hi,
> I think the PHP 5 tree has matured a lot and it's time to release
> an RC. I
> think end of November or mid-December makes sense. I'd like to aim at the
> former date
*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
Hi,
> I think the PHP 5 tree has matured a lot and it's time to release
> an RC. I
> think end of November or mid-December makes sense. I'd like to aim at the
> former date.
> Are there any major (as in "major") issues whic
I went over this list today. Some need to be addressed but the majority are
not engine problems.
I suggest everyone here takes a look at them and tries to solve what they can.
I have already planned time to go over the engine ones.
Andi
At 04:29 PM 11/11/2003 -0500, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
Andi,
At 10:08 PM 11/11/2003 +0100, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 10:01:32PM +0100, Stig S. Bakken wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 19:05, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> > Hey guys,
> >
> > I think the PHP 5 tree has matured a lot and it's time to release an
RC. I
> > think end of November or mid
Andi,
According to:
http://bugs.php.net/search.php?cmd=display&bug_ntype[]=Feature%2FChange+Request&bug_ntype[]=Documentation+problem&bug_ntype[]=PECL+related&bug_ntype[]=PHP-GTK+related&bug_ntype[]=Website+problem&status=Open&search_for=&php_os=&boolean=0&author_email=&bug_age=0&by=&order_by=id&d
At 09:56 PM 11/11/2003 +0100, Georg Richter wrote:
> I think the PHP 5 tree has matured a lot and it's time to release an RC. I
> think end of November or mid-December makes sense. I'd like to aim at the
> former date.
thats too fast, or do you mean Nov/Dec. 2004? Why such a hurry? Shouldn't we
hav
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 10:01:32PM +0100, Stig S. Bakken wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 19:05, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> > Hey guys,
> >
> > I think the PHP 5 tree has matured a lot and it's time to release an RC. I
> > think end of November or mid-December makes sense. I'd like to aim at the
> > fo
On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 19:05, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> I think the PHP 5 tree has matured a lot and it's time to release an RC. I
> think end of November or mid-December makes sense. I'd like to aim at the
> former date.
> Are there any major (as in "major") issues which in your
> opi
Hi!
>
> I think the PHP 5 tree has matured a lot and it's time to release an RC. I
> think end of November or mid-December makes sense. I'd like to aim at the
> former date.
thats too fast, or do you mean Nov/Dec. 2004? Why such a hurry? Shouldn't we
have a feature freeze first and try to releas
Hey guys,
I think the PHP 5 tree has matured a lot and it's time to release an RC. I
think end of November or mid-December makes sense. I'd like to aim at the
former date.
Are there any major (as in "major") issues which in your
opinion still need to be dealt with?
Thanks,
Andi
--
PHP Internal
58 matches
Mail list logo
