On 3 Apr 2003, Christian Stocker wrote:
As it's quite hard/expensive for Windows users to compile their own
extensions, is there a possibility to add some PECL-extensions into the
Windows releases? Mainly there are ext/radius and ext/imagick, which I
know do compile on Windows (and wouldn't add
Hi,
Jani Taskinen schrieb:
On 3 Apr 2003, Christian Stocker wrote:
As it's quite hard/expensive for Windows users to compile their own
extensions, is there a possibility to add some PECL-extensions into the
Windows releases? Mainly there are ext/radius and ext/imagick, which I
know do compile
-Original Message-
From: Michael Bretterklieber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 1:24 PM
To: Jani Taskinen
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] pecl binaries in PHP Win releases?
in general its a good idea, but I'm thinking about how
Webspace
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 14:42, Dan Kalowsky wrote:
On Thursday, April 3, 2003, at 05:30 AM, Christian Stocker wrote:
As it's quite hard/expensive for Windows users to compile their own
extensions, is there a possibility to add some PECL-extensions into the
Windows releases? Mainly there
On Thursday, April 3, 2003, at 07:52 AM, Christian Stocker wrote:
The ideas was not to add compiled extensions to snaps.php.net, but to
compile them like all the other extensions are compiled on
snaps.php.net. It just takes the source from pecl/whatever. The
injection of bad code is much lower
The main point of the signature is to allow the end-user to detect if a
mirror site is holding tampered binary (or source) packages.
I agree that a signature system is a good idea for releases that are
destined to be mirrored, but it just doesn't seem to be much of a high
priority for snaps which
