Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 2:42:05 PM, you wrote:
> Hi Marcus,
>>> I'm pretty sure this is a wrong fix - the check for "not shared" replaces
>>> the original check for HAVE_HASH_EXT, which is effectively a global
>>> equivalent to $PHP_HASH. So it should be something like:
>>> if test "$PHP_HASH" != "no"; then
>>> if test "$PHP_HASH_SHARED" != "yes"; then
>>> AC_DEFINE(PHAR_HASH_OK,1,[ ])
>>> AC_MSG_WARN([Phar: sha256/sha512 signature support disabled if
>>> is built shared])
>> As far as I can tell that acomplishes the same. Onlz zou
> German kb? ;)
>> changed the
>> original logic a lot rather then trzing to keep as much of it as possible.
> Nope. The *original* logic said 'is it there?' Greg changed that to 'is it
> !shared?' You changed it back to 'is it there?' It needs to be 'is it there
> && !shared?'
read again. It says if it is shared then issue an error. If it is present
then use it.
>>> The ext/hash files are already included as appropriate in phar_internal.h
>>> and don't/shouldn't need re-including anywhere else.
>> Doesnät matter. This helps me figuring out what is wrong.
> In CVS?
>>> Also - it looks like ext/hash needs adding to phar_deps in phar.c (as
>> Zep, that's a good point.
>>> And config.w32 needs updating to define PHAR_HASH_OK, since there'll be
>>> hash support under doze otherwise. HAVE_HASH_EXT is at least
>> Since I cannot test on windows I need windows developers like zou to fix
> I haven't been able to test 5.3 in months.. I'll fix/test/merge out of PECL
> & 5.2 once it's working under *nix, but currently it doesn't seem to be
> working anywhere :)
> - Steph
PHP CVS Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php