On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:
>Jani Taskinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Our codebase is much larger than any other plus we 'misuse'
>> the auto* tools. :) Feel free to bring the stuff up-to-date so
>> we actually COULD update to latest libtool/autoconf, etc.
>> I looked at this once and decided it wasn't worth the effort..
>
>I used the auto* tools as a sample of another similar case :). Note I'm
>not an expert of auto* as you seems to be, and only wondering why it
>does not work. Is it another good reason to delay the php5 release and
>fix it? It seems we are all busy as hell, and many "bugs" are left due
>to this fact.
Delay it another year? Then maybe. :)
I'm sure not gonna spend my precious time with this non-issue
as the versions we rely on work fine.
>What do you mean by 'misuse'? maybe some informations/tips can help to
>get fixes?
Sascha propably can explain better, I remember that the auto*/libtool
developers once said we use the tools wrong or something like that. :)
>> (autoconf > 2.13 is slow too. And the generated configure is
>> REALLY slow.
>
>lol who cares? Do you generate a configure every hour?
Yes, I generate it quite often. And my machine isn't the fastest
in the world so for me it's an issue if generating configure
takes very long time..here are quick'n'dirty benchmarks:
Latest auto*/libtool:
# time ./buildconf
real 1m28.287s
user 1m22.080s
sys 0m5.710s
"Old" auto*/libtool:
# time ./buildconf
real 0m18.772s
user 0m15.750s
sys 0m5.350s
Running ./configure only takes about 20s more with new tools,
so that's not so big issue.
>> Not to forget the fact that the versions I tested are also buggy in
>> some cases, can't remember right now in what way and too busy to
>> actually test again)
>
>Could help if you remember these issues :)
I have no time nor interest in testing it all again..
--Jani
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
