On 11.09.2008 12:01, Raghubansh wrote:
Thanks Jani, I have using the same machine with Autoconf V2.59 since 2007
and it use to work :(. I shall get the autoconf-2.13. installed and check.
thanks.
Can't see any problems with autoconf 2.61.
--
Wbr,
Antony Dovgal
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtim
Thanks Jani, I have using the same machine with Autoconf V2.59 since 2007
and it use to work :(. I shall get the autoconf-2.13. installed and check.
thanks.
with Regards,
Raghubansh
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Jani Taskinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raghubansh wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>>
Raghubansh wrote:
Hi All,
I am trying to build PHP6 (checked out a while from CVS - HEAD) and found
that ./buildconf fails. Following are the failure messages :
[EMAIL PROTECTED] php6]$ ./buildconf
using default Zend directory
buildconf: checking installation...
buildconf: autoconf version 2.5
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 5, 2007, at 10:06:45, David Coallier wrote:
On 9/5/07, BuildSmart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 5, 2007, at 06:00:41, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote:
Hello Mr B*S*
hmm, not my name or my pse
On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 09:49 -0400, BuildSmart wrote:
[lot of crap cut to save the innocent]
> Examine the bug tracker, it appears it's a slow process for the
> majority of bugs related to Mac OS X.
There's good reason to it: Most of us don't want to spend ridiculous
amount of money just to get a
On 9/5/07, BuildSmart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> On Sep 5, 2007, at 06:00:41, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote:
>
> > Hello Mr B*S*
>
> hmm, not my name or my pseudonym but the remainder of this post
> appears to have been written by me, dyslexic are
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 5, 2007, at 06:00:41, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote:
Hello Mr B*S*
hmm, not my name or my pseudonym but the remainder of this post
appears to have been written by me, dyslexic are you?
The complaints over the 4 or 5 I have mentioned on t
Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote:
>
>> The complaints over the 4 or 5 I have mentioned on the list has borne
>> the remarks that I swamp the list with the reports, how it would be if
>> I dumped a couple hundred?
>
> if you dumped them on the list you would end up in everyones ignore
> list as *the list
Hello Mr B*S*
The complaints over the 4 or 5 I have mentioned on the list has borne
the remarks that I swamp the list with the reports, how it would be if I
dumped a couple hundred?
if you dumped them on the list you would end up in everyones ignore
list as *the list is not the right communi
Dear Mr. BuildSmart
I'm not interested in filing a minimum of 100 bug reports when you don't
have the manpower to process them, I've resolved most of them already
(at least the ones related to the php base) and any that I haven't I've
noted as "Broken - DNU" so I don't pass anything unstable o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 4, 2007, at 14:07:35, Stut wrote:
Hello Dale,
I'm not experienced enough to comment on most of what you said, but
not reporting bugs in a piece of software because you're worried
that 1) the developers won't be able to deal with the vol
Due to the nature of my work, I have encountered just about every
imaginable bug in the build process, if I were to submit bug reports on
each and every issue encountered, the number alone would swamp the
developers who spend their time validating and substantiating the
reported bugs because I
On 04.09.2007 21:48, BuildSmart wrote:
> Unlike many developers who do this in their spare time, I have the
> time, resources, energy and motivation to attack PHP with extreme
> aggression.
Please stop here, right now.
No need to attack anything or anyone.
If you want your job (or life, 'caus
I'm not interested in filing a minimum of 100 bug reports when you
don't have the manpower to process them, I've resolved most of them
already (at least the ones related to the php base) and any that I
haven't I've noted as "Broken - DNU" so I don't pass anything
unstable on to my clients.
Hello Dale,
I'm not experienced enough to comment on most of what you said, but not
reporting bugs in a piece of software because you're worried that 1) the
developers won't be able to deal with the volume and 2) you're worried
about damaging the reputation of said software has to be the most
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 4, 2007, at 09:02:23, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote:
Dear Mr BuildSmart
BuildSmart wrote:
SInce I didn't consider it a bug but rather a minor error of
importance,
just out of curiosity: how do you define "bug" if not as "any error"?
I thoug
Dear Mr BuildSmart
BuildSmart wrote:
SInce I didn't consider it a bug but rather a minor error of importance,
just out of curiosity: how do you define "bug" if not as "any error"?
I thought it would best be handled by making the maintainers aware of
the issue since the fix is relatively simp
> Actually, I'll simplify matters even more and save my time, I wont
> file any bug reports or provide any solutions,
It looks like there is a misunderstanding. My answers had no bad
meanings. It was only about telling you how we use to work. Most of us
work on this project (*.php.net) in our free
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'd like to work on resolving as many of the bugs as possible in the
shortest amount of time because there are not enough PHP developers
to go around validating and fixing every reported bug, this means
that the person assigned many of the bugs
Hi Dale,
I'm not sure I was clear enough in my last four replies. We have two
important issues tracker (for your needs):
http://bugs.php.net for all you can have in php releases or snaps
http://pecl.php.net for all PECL packages
http://pear.php.net for all PEAR packages (pear installer included)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
For those interested in the fix.
ext/standard/config.m4:
dnl
dnl round fuzz
dnl
+AC_DEFUN([PHP_CHECK_ROUNDING_WORKS],[
AC_MSG_CHECKING([whether rounding works as expected])
AC_TRY_RUN([
#include
/* keep this out-of-line to prevent use of gc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 3, 2007, at 15:21:26, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote:
Dear Mr. BuildSmart
I didn't change my autoconf to correct the problem, that is an
assumption on your part,
talking about assumptions: i didn't claim that changing the
autoconf version use
Hi Mr. BuildSmart,
I invite you to take a look at http://www.php.net/anoncvs.php before
complaining. It is clearly stated that autoconf 2.13 is a requirement. Most
package distributions (I checked Ubuntu, FreeBSD ports and pkgsrc) still
provide autoconf 2.13 and it is not really a problem to have
On 9/3/07, BuildSmart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> On Sep 3, 2007, at 04:58:51, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>
> > Perhaps you should stick to using the pre-generated configure and not
> > try to hack things since you obviously have no clue.
>
> Did som
BuildSmart wrote:
[... inappropriate language removed ...]
Why would I want to downgrade, don't tell me it's because you claim all
other versions are buggy, I find that hard to accept since the only
problem I've ever experienced to date has been with PHP6
> and swapping two lines corrected th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 3, 2007, at 04:58:51, Jani Taskinen wrote:
Perhaps you should stick to using the pre-generated configure and not
try to hack things since you obviously have no clue.
Did somebody piss in your cornflakes or are you always this charming?
Wh
Perhaps you should stick to using the pre-generated configure and not
try to hack things since you obviously have no clue.
If you want to build configure (which usually is very bad thing!)
yourself, install autoconf-2.13. Any other version is not supported.
--Jani
On Mon, 2007-09-03 at 01:55 -04
On 7/19/07, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What about adding the files generated by flex to CVS? Most people don't need
to regenerate those files anyway, and this way they could keep the newer
version of flex on their machine.
Most people don't use CVS, they use a) the releases b) snapshots.
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 02:49:59 -0700, "David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Downgrading flex to 2.5.4a-r6...
>>
>> seems to have fixed the issue.
>>
>> I'm running make test right now :-)
>>
>> Thanks all!!!
>>
>> PS
>> I've also edited the but with a request to make it a Documentation
>> Fix, rat
What about adding the files generated by flex to CVS? Most people don't need
to regenerate those files anyway, and this way they could keep the newer
version of flex on their machine.
> Downgrading flex to 2.5.4a-r6...
>
> seems to have fixed the issue.
>
> I'm running make test right no
On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 02:31 -0400, Cristian Rodriguez wrote:
> On 7/19/07, Richard Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Kind of a PITA...
>
> No problems here with automake-1.10 , autoconf-2.61 , libtool-1.5.22,
> bison-2.3.
> the only oldie we had to keep is flex, as PHP buildsystem wont supp
On Thu, July 19, 2007 2:56 am, Nuno Lopes wrote:
>> On Thu, July 19, 2007 12:45 am, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>>> Richard Lynch wrote:
What is the status of bringing PHP build process up to current
automake/autoconf/libtool versions?...
>>
>>> Or you could try simply using the current version
On Thu, July 19, 2007 12:45 am, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Richard Lynch wrote:
What is the status of bringing PHP build process up to current
automake/autoconf/libtool versions?...
Or you could try simply using the current versions. They work fine.
Yes, they all fail equally well. :-)
I also
On 7/19/07, Richard Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Kind of a PITA...
No problems here with automake-1.10 , autoconf-2.61 , libtool-1.5.22, bison-2.3.
the only oldie we had to keep is flex, as PHP buildsystem wont support
newer flex versions.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailin
On Thu, July 19, 2007 12:45 am, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> Richard Lynch wrote:
>> What is the status of bringing PHP build process up to current
>> automake/autoconf/libtool versions?...
> Or you could try simply using the current versions. They work fine.
Yes, they all fail equally well. :-)
[see
Richard Lynch wrote:
> What is the status of bringing PHP build process up to current
> automake/autoconf/libtool versions?...
>
> Gentoo doesn't even have a libtool 1.4.x available, afaict...
>
> I've down-graded automake and autoconf okay, but then I can't even
> emerge wget to try and download
Jani Taskinen wrote:
> We only support/use libtool 1.4.3, so..
The detection code for multiple autoconf versions is still wrong, IMHO.
--
Sebastian Bergmann http://www.sebastian-bergmann.de/
GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D69 / 27A7 2B14 09E4 98CD 6277 0E5B 6867 C514 B85B 5D69
--
PHP
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Magnus Määttä wrote:
Hello Sebastian,
On Tuesday 11 January 2005 07.39, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
Haven't built HEAD on Linux for a while but when I tried today
buildconf didn't like my autoconf:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] php-5.1 % ./buildconf
using default Zend directory
buildconf
Hello Sebastian,
On Tuesday 11 January 2005 07.39, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> Haven't built HEAD on Linux for a while but when I tried today
> buildconf didn't like my autoconf:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] php-5.1 % ./buildconf
> using default Zend directory
> buildconf: checking installation...
>
Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> Then again, it used to work fine until recently.
Reverting build/build2.mk to revision 1.30 seems to fix the issue.
The checks introduced in revision 1.31 seem to find both
/usr/bin/autoconf (wrapper, defaults to 2.5x) and /usr/bin/autoconf-2.13
(no wrapper) and ge
Derick Rethans wrote:
> Sounds like a problem in your wrapper scripts then...
buildcheck.sh calls "autoconf-2.13". This does not involve the wrapper
script.
Later "autoconf" is called. This one is handled by the wrapper which
defaults to autoconf 2.5x.
It might be a problem with the wrapper
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> > buildconf: autoconf version 2.13 (ok)
>
> It finds autoconf 2.13 because buildcheck.sh explicitly calls
> autoconf-2.13 (instead of just autoconf).
>
> > FATAL ERROR: Autoconf version 2.50 or higher is required
>
> A
Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> buildconf: autoconf version 2.13 (ok)
It finds autoconf 2.13 because buildcheck.sh explicitly calls
autoconf-2.13 (instead of just autoconf).
> FATAL ERROR: Autoconf version 2.50 or higher is required
And then it uses autoconf 2.59 because it calls autoconf.
--
S
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 02:07:28PM +0100, Sascha Schumann wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Patrick Welche wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 08:51:16AM +0100, Sascha Schumann wrote:
> > > If you want to propose modifications to the current build
> > > chain, feel free to post a patch.
> >
>
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Patrick Welche wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 08:51:16AM +0100, Sascha Schumann wrote:
> > If you want to propose modifications to the current build
> > chain, feel free to post a patch.
>
> Enclosed is an even nicer patch. I shouldn't have mentioned the "cat"
> warn
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 08:51:16AM +0100, Sascha Schumann wrote:
> If you want to propose modifications to the current build
> chain, feel free to post a patch.
Enclosed is an even nicer patch. I shouldn't have mentioned the "cat"
warning in the previous posting - it has nothing to do with
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 08:51:16AM +0100, Sascha Schumann wrote:
> > The above still stands. I would call your use of the autotools
> > unorthodox.
>
> The problem with a number of autotools is that they are
> unsuitable for large projects which contain a huge number of
> independent m
> The above still stands. I would call your use of the autotools
> unorthodox.
The problem with a number of autotools is that they are
unsuitable for large projects which contain a huge number of
independent modules. We initially kicked out automake
because of that reason and furt
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, Patrick Welche wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 04:51:43PM +0200, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>>
>> There's nothing wrong in this. If your autoconf/aclocal/etc.
>> tools are installed correctly, buildconf works fine.
>>
>> Please use the snapshots if you don't know w
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 04:51:43PM +0200, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>
> There's nothing wrong in this. If your autoconf/aclocal/etc.
> tools are installed correctly, buildconf works fine.
>
> Please use the snapshots if you don't know what you're doing.
:-) I have to smile otherwise I
There's nothing wrong in this. If your autoconf/aclocal/etc.
tools are installed correctly, buildconf works fine.
Please use the snapshots if you don't know what you're doing.
--Jani
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, Patrick Welche wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 01:06:11PM +02
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 01:06:11PM +0200, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>
> Yes, you need libtool 1.4.3. (no, 1.5 is not backwards compatible)
There is still something strange with buildconf:
% make -n -s -f build/build.mk AMFLAGS= ZENDDIR=Zend
build/buildcheck.sh buildmk.stamp
echo makefile_am_files
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, Patrick Welche wrote:
>On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 10:07:13PM +0200, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>>
>> Do fresh checkout of 'php5' module. You'll get all correct
>> files then, no need to checkout ZendEngine2 separately..
>
>I'm amazed how much that helped.. Now there is just
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 10:07:13PM +0200, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>
> Do fresh checkout of 'php5' module. You'll get all correct
> files then, no need to checkout ZendEngine2 separately..
I'm amazed how much that helped.. Now there is just the following buglet:
buildconf: libtool version
Do fresh checkout of 'php5' module. You'll get all correct
files then, no need to checkout ZendEngine2 separately..
--Jani
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Patrick Welche wrote:
>I just cvs update -A a php4 src tree to get php5 (had to checkout ZendEngine2),
>and assume that the next
55 matches
Mail list logo
