Hello Wez,
if we make dba/inifile a defaul component then a script to do the merge
would be pretty easy or in other words could easily become part of the
pecl/pear install/upgrade stuff.
regards
marcus
Monday, August 29, 2005, 6:00:04 PM, you wrote:
> and/or provide a mechanism for merging an
and/or provide a mechanism for merging an ini fragment from a pecl
package into the php.ini file.
--Wez.
On 8/29/05, Edin Kadibasic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't see the reason for doing this except making life of people who
> download the PECL package more difficult. I belive this should
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Well, I would grep or search in my editor for "nph" if I was looking for a
toggle for this. My search would not find the more verbose directive.
-Rasmus
Either way, in the config file there is a comment before the directive.
We could just put something like:
; Use this di
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> At 00:10 11/02/2004, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> >On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Derick Rethans wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well we do tend to be verbose in PHP even when it's non-standard.
> > > > I'd really prefer cgi.non_p
At 02:10 PM 2/10/2004 -0800, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>
> > Well we do tend to be verbose in PHP even when it's non-standard.
> > I'd really prefer cgi.non_parsing_headers.
>
> It should be common_gateway_interface.
At 00:12 11/02/2004, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
As always I do not have a particular instance on the names. I do believe nph
in this situation is better, simply because it would make the setting easier
to find. That's the name of the option in other instances and I'd imagine
would be the 1st thing a u
At 00:10 11/02/2004, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>
> > Well we do tend to be verbose in PHP even when it's non-standard.
> > I'd really prefer cgi.non_parsing_headers.
>
> It should be common_gateway_interface.non_pars
As always I do not have a particular instance on the names. I do believe nph
in this situation is better, simply because it would make the setting easier
to find. That's the name of the option in other instances and I'd imagine
would be the 1st thing a user would search for. The acronym itself c
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>
> > Well we do tend to be verbose in PHP even when it's non-standard.
> > I'd really prefer cgi.non_parsing_headers.
>
> It should be common_gateway_interface.non_parsing_headers then...
Yeah, nph is pretty
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Well we do tend to be verbose in PHP even when it's non-standard.
> I'd really prefer cgi.non_parsing_headers.
It should be common_gateway_interface.non_parsing_headers then...
Derick
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscr
Well we do tend to be verbose in PHP even when it's non-standard.
I'd really prefer cgi.non_parsing_headers.
Andi
At 03:24 PM 2/10/2004 -0500, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
nph stands for non parsing headers. In our particular situation it would
allow
CGI to print Status: 200 header, which is normally
nph stands for non parsing headers. In our particular situation it would allow
CGI to print Status: 200 header, which is normally skipped as it is not
needed in most situations.
I specifically used nph as the option name, since that is what is being used
most frequently to refer to the option in
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> What does nph stand for? Can you think of a more verbose name?
Non-parsed Headers or something... but NPH is really just the name for
the beast :)
Derick
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Does everyone concur? :)
I do.
Derick
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Ok with me
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Does everyone concur? :)
>
> At 10:41 AM 1/29/2004 +0200, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>
> > Like I already commented before, gpc_order:
> >
> > a) confuses (why have two options doing exactly same thing?!)
> > b) has been said to not ev
15 matches
Mail list logo
