On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> Just a curious question – would it be possible to add some code
> directly to upstream, so you wouldn't have to engulf
> yet-another-library into PHP source tree?
It is a bit of work to support php's stream upstream. I wanted to do
it back the
Hi!
> Just a curious question – would it be possible to add some code
> directly to upstream, so you wouldn't have to engulf
> yet-another-library into PHP source tree?
>
> It's always a security nightmare to have various copies of libraries
> at various places of the system.
Not sure about what
Just a curious question – would it be possible to add some code
directly to upstream, so you wouldn't have to engulf
yet-another-library into PHP source tree?
It's always a security nightmare to have various copies of libraries
at various places of the system.
Ondrej
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 7:44
Hi,
Am Samstag, den 06.04.2013, 17:12 -0700 schrieb Stas Malyshev:
> Looks ok, but I have one question - we have libmagic.patch file there
> which as I understand is supposed to be diff between "our" libmagic and
> upstream libmagic. But this patch does not update it. Is it intentional?
> Will it
Hi!
> I've invested more time and here's almost cleaned up patch
>
> http://belski.net/phpz/finfo/finfo_5.14_10.patch.gz
>
> The tests pass, valgrind is happy, as well Windows. I've noticed no
> behaviour change, except - as the data is updated and one might see
> different (eventually better) r
Stas,
how does it look with this one? Please let me know whether it's ok for
5.4. I would go with master otherwise.
Thanks
Anatol
On Mon, 2013-04-01 at 19:13 +0200, Anatol Belski wrote:
> Stas,
>
> I've invested more time and here's almost cleaned up patch
>
> http://belski.net/phpz/finfo/fi
Stas,
I've invested more time and here's almost cleaned up patch
http://belski.net/phpz/finfo/finfo_5.14_10.patch.gz
The tests pass, valgrind is happy, as well Windows. I've noticed no
behaviour change, except - as the data is updated and one might see
different (eventually better) results.
Ple
On 03/27/2013 09:35 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> We have done that many times in the past for 5.3 and 5.4. It is
> relatively risk free. Even more for 5.5 during beta phase. It does not
> add new features but fixes bugs.
>
> The good side effect is that we can test it well with 5.5 and back
> port to
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 7:29 PM, David Soria Parra wrote:
> On 03/26/2013 11:44 PM, Anatol Belski wrote:
>> What +/- I personally see upgrading this at this time:
>>
>> contra:
>> - there might be bugs, the next release might have not all them fixed
>> - 5.11 is what the latest linux exts have eve
On 03/26/2013 11:44 PM, Anatol Belski wrote:
> What +/- I personally see upgrading this at this time:
>
> contra:
> - there might be bugs, the next release might have not all them fixed
> - 5.11 is what the latest linux exts have even as dev
> - older/custom magic files might be incompatible
>
>
10 matches
Mail list logo
