I've repackaged 5.0.4 and posted it on php.net. The only difference is the
addition of the missing file, everything else is identical.
Zeev
At 01:00 02/04/2005, Zeev Suraski wrote:
Folks,
We have a bit of a situation with the PEAR distro that's embedded in
5.0.4. It's missing the RunTest.php f
All,
One problem that became apparent after the introduction of __autoload(), is
that different pieces of code, sometimes coming from different sources, may
want to declare this function in a different way. Today, __autoload() is
treated like any other function, so it's impossible to re-declare
Zeev Suraski wrote:
All,
One problem that became apparent after the introduction of __autoload(),
is that different pieces of code, sometimes coming from different
sources, may want to declare this function in a different way. Today,
__autoload() is treated like any other function, so it's impo
I would like first to see some bugs closed, like:
* #30641 - PHP 5.1 doesn't compile on Solaris 9
* #31725 - PHP is always segfaulting when using sqlite
* upgrade sqlite and PCRE libraries
Thanks,
Nuno
- Original Message -
Hey,
I'd like to roll PHP 5.1 Beta 1 very soon.
Wez, I've been wait
At 14:21 03/04/2005, Andrey Hristov wrote:
Zeev Suraski wrote:
All,
One problem that became apparent after the introduction of __autoload(),
is that different pieces of code, sometimes coming from different
sources, may want to declare this function in a different way. Today,
__autoload() is tr
Hi,
I would like first to see some bugs closed, like:
* #30641 - PHP 5.1 doesn't compile on Solaris 9
* #31725 - PHP is always segfaulting when using sqlite
* upgrade sqlite and PCRE libraries
Maybe also upgrade GD.
Also, can I humbly suggest we add the Progress Meter / Upload Status
Patch for ve
On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 12:48:59 +0100
"Nuno Lopes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would like first to see some bugs closed, like:
> * #30641 - PHP 5.1 doesn't compile on Solaris 9
> * #31725 - PHP is always segfaulting when using sqlite
> * upgrade sqlite and PCRE libraries
There are also some bugs
Zeev Suraski wrote:
All,
One problem that became apparent after the introduction of __autoload(),
is that different pieces of code, sometimes coming from different
sources, may want to declare this function in a different way. Today,
__autoload() is treated like any other function, so it's impo
At 15:18 03/04/2005, Andrey Hristov wrote:
Hi Zeev,
the idea one __autoload() may not be capable of loading therefore the next
one in the chain should be executed to try to load/define the needed code.
bool(false) returned from __autoload() means try with the next in the chain,
bool(true) everythi
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 03:00:03PM -0700, Robert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> >I would like first to see some bugs closed, like:
> >* #30641 - PHP 5.1 doesn't compile on Solaris 9
> >* #31725 - PHP is always segfaulting when using sqlite
> >* upgrade sqlite and PCRE libraries
>
> Maybe also upgrade GD.
>
>
Maybe we should first get all the tests pass before rolling
any kind of release? Here's the list of currently failing tests:
(note: some might not be bugs but just bad tests..)
ZE2 ArrayAccess::offsetGet ambiguties [tests/classes/array_access_003.phpt]
ZE2 ArrayAccess and sub Ar
Jani assigned bug 32424 to me: http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=32424&edit=1
I think I have the solution for that problem, but I do not know how to fix
it because it is not NSAPI specific and I do not know exactly whats going
on in output.c.
The problem:
In a normal PHP request with headers to the
Zeev Suraski wrote:
At 15:18 03/04/2005, Andrey Hristov wrote:
Hi Zeev,
the idea one __autoload() may not be capable of loading therefore the
next
one in the chain should be executed to try to load/define the needed
code.
bool(false) returned from __autoload() means try with the next in the
cha
I dont know if you read the blog comments here:
http://www.akbkhome.com/blog.php/View/79/require_once+is+part+of+your
+documentation..html
and here
http://www.akbkhome.com/blog.php/View/77/is+__autoload+evil%3F.html
and slightly related
http://www.akbkhome.com/blog.php/View/76/require_once%2C+one
Jani,
We're talking beta (I don't mind calling it alpha either) to get PDO and
the new engine architecture tested by more people.
It doesn't mean all tests need to pass. Don't worry, bugs will be addressed
before a 5.1 release which is still very far off. But don't expect the
whole bugs.php.net
Guys,
Not that I disagree with resolving these problems, but it has nothing to do
with beta 1 which was planned to get wider testing and feedback, mainly
about PDO which is the main new code base in 5.1.
It won't wait for any of these things although I'll be happy if people
resolve them :)
Andi
Then call it pre-alpha.
--Jani
We're talking beta (I don't mind calling it alpha either) to get PDO and the
new engine architecture tested by more people.
It doesn't mean all tests need to pass. Don't worry, bugs will be addressed
before a 5.1 release which is still very far off. But don'
On Sun, 3 Apr 2005, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Jani,
>
> We're talking beta (I don't mind calling it alpha either) to get PDO and the
> new engine architecture tested by more people.
I think we should call it alpha too...
Derick
--
Derick Rethans
http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xde
But at least you could allow Solaris guys to test PHP 5.1 beta 1 :)
Nuno
- Original Message -
Guys,
Not that I disagree with resolving these problems, but it has nothing to
do with beta 1 which was planned to get wider testing and feedback, mainly
about PDO which is the main new code bas
On Apr 3, 2005, at 6:05 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
What I'd like to suggest is a change in the behavior of __autoload(),
so that multiple __autoload()'s could be defined. Essentially,
declaring __autoload() would in fact add the function to the list of
functions that are called in case a missing c
Zeev Suraski wrote:
All,
One problem that became apparent after the introduction of __autoload(),
is that different pieces of code, sometimes coming from different
sources, may want to declare this function in a different way. Today,
__autoload() is treated like any other function, so it's impo
Hello Jani,
yes that'd much better then calling it beta. Beta would prevent us from
changes and according to my history there are several things just missing
right now.
Sunday, April 3, 2005, 9:32:49 AM, you wrote:
> Then call it pre-alpha.
> --Jani
>> We're talking beta (I don't
Hello Zeev,
Sunday, April 3, 2005, 6:05:22 AM, you wrote:
> All,
> One problem that became apparent after the introduction of __autoload(), is
> that different pieces of code, sometimes coming from different sources, may
> want to declare this function in a different way. Today, __autoload() is
At 18:31 03/04/2005, Marcus Boerger wrote:
Right from the beginning i said __autoload() is just wrong and we need the
described behavior. However all i got back is that i am just wrong and we
don't need it. And that from everybody. But since SPL already gives all
you mentioned there is no reason to
Do you have a fix?
Andi
At 03:15 PM 4/3/2005 +0100, Nuno Lopes wrote:
But at least you could allow Solaris guys to test PHP 5.1 beta 1 :)
Nuno
- Original Message -
Guys,
Not that I disagree with resolving these problems, but it has nothing to
do with beta 1 which was planned to get wider t
I'm fine with calling it Alpha especially as PDO might still change stuff.
At 10:05 AM 4/3/2005 -0400, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2005, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Jani,
>
> We're talking beta (I don't mind calling it alpha either) to get PDO
and the
> new engine architecture tested by more peo
Alan,
Your blog entry is actually what made me look into that topic. I'm not
sure whether I agree with you regarding the general necessity of
__autoload(). __autoload() is not only about saving the headache of
explicit require()'s, it's also about 'JITing' this task, so that no
classes are lo
Andi Gutmans wrote:
I'd like to roll PHP 5.1 Beta 1 very soon.
Wez, I've been waiting for PDO in order to get this going. Do you feel
it's mature enough or should I hold off some more time?
Before we go beta, I'd like to see php_check_syntax() disappear (as it
seems it will never be "fixed").
It
At 11:31 AM 4/3/2005 -0400, Marcus Boerger wrote:
I did not try to get it fixed i just fixed it (dot).
Right from the beginning i said __autoload() is just wrong and we need the
described behavior. However all i got back is that i am just wrong and we
don't need it. And that from everybody. But sin
I'll go Alpha. I'll try and roll towards the end of next week.
I agree with Ilia and Rasmus and suggest to nuke it.
Andi
At 11:48 AM 4/3/2005 -0400, Sean Coates wrote:
Andi Gutmans wrote:
I'd like to roll PHP 5.1 Beta 1 very soon.
Wez, I've been waiting for PDO in order to get this going. Do you fe
Patch attached (explanation in the bug report).
Nuno
- Original Message -
Do you have a fix?
Andi
At 03:15 PM 4/3/2005 +0100, Nuno Lopes wrote:
But at least you could allow Solaris guys to test PHP 5.1 beta 1 :)
Nuno
- Original Message -
Guys,
Not that I disagree with resolving the
thanks. will check it out.
At 05:16 PM 4/3/2005 +0100, Nuno Lopes wrote:
Patch attached (explanation in the bug report).
Nuno
- Original Message -
Do you have a fix?
Andi
At 03:15 PM 4/3/2005 +0100, Nuno Lopes wrote:
But at least you could allow Solaris guys to test PHP 5.1 beta 1 :)
Nuno
-
(I'm not sure if extension development belongs on this list, but I
couldn't find a better one. If there is a more appropriate list, could
someone please point me to it?)
I am working on an extension that is os x specific & relies on Carbon &
ApplicationServices (it is a port of appscript, to al
Although this list should be able to answer the question for you,
another list which might be of assistance/interest to you is pecl-dev.
http://pecl.php.net/support.php
-Jeremy
On Apr 3, 2005 2:00 PM, Michael Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (I'm not sure if extension development belongs on
Hello Zeev,
Sunday, April 3, 2005, 10:39:39 AM, you wrote:
> At 18:31 03/04/2005, Marcus Boerger wrote:
>>Right from the beginning i said __autoload() is just wrong and we need the
>>described behavior. However all i got back is that i am just wrong and we
>>don't need it. And that from everybody
Hello Andi,
Saturday, April 2, 2005, 10:53:19 PM, you wrote:
> Hey,
> I'd like to roll PHP 5.1 Beta 1 very soon.
> Wez, I've been waiting for PDO in order to get this going. Do you feel it's
> mature enough or should I hold off some more time?
> Also, has someone already integrated PDO configure
Michael Johnston wrote:
(I'm not sure if extension development belongs on this list, but I
couldn't find a better one. If there is a more appropriate list, could
someone please point me to it?)
I am working on an extension that is os x specific & relies on Carbon
& ApplicationServices (it is a
On Sun, 3 Apr 2005, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> I don't think the right solution though is to leave the not-optimal
> solution in the engine, and create a solution outside the engine. I think
> we should find a way to tune the engine so that it works well. Zeev's
> suggestion keeps BC. If there are conc
On Sun, 3 Apr 2005, Marcus Boerger wrote:
> Can we get some things straight first (i guess that's the idea of an alpha).
> I'd like to reintroduce __toString() since 5.1 is supposed to make it work
> again. The patching should be easy enough since we left in most of the
> necessary code as we plan
I agree and that's why we made the opcode changes to make them re-entrant.
Will look into it. I was sure we already uncommented that code :)
At 08:54 PM 4/3/2005 -0400, Adam Maccabee Trachtenberg wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2005, Marcus Boerger wrote:
> Can we get some things straight first (i guess that'
Hi, I've been using PHP for a long time and have recently found a
couple of major bugs that would allow pretty much any user on a shared
web hosting server to read other user's files. The conditions for this
exploit are quite common. Also, from what I can tell, this exploit
would not be very
Is that a publically accessable mailing list or does it just go to a
few people?
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:35:59AM GMT, Rasmus Lerdorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] said
the following:
> Such issues should be directed to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Mark Krenz wrote:
> > Hi, I've been using PHP for a long ti
Please send details to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for further analysis.
--Wez.
On Apr 3, 2005 11:32 PM, Mark Krenz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi, I've been using PHP for a long time and have recently found a
> couple of major bugs that would allow pretty much any user on a shared
> web hosting ser
Such issues should be directed to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mark Krenz wrote:
Hi, I've been using PHP for a long time and have recently found a
couple of major bugs that would allow pretty much any user on a shared
web hosting server to read other user's files. The conditions for this
exploit are quite
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 10:43:30PM -0500, Jon Parise wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 04:15:38PM +0300, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>
> > > Such schemes are quite common thanks to incompatibilities between
> > > autotools versions, e. g. Subversion's buildconf equivalent accepts
> > > the names fr
The patch is fine by me. It's very good idea too since
it's not likely to break anyone's build whatever versions
they have installed. :)
Just commit. (or if you can't, I'll do it later today)
--Jani
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Jon Parise wrote:
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 10:43:30PM -0500,
46 matches
Mail list logo
