Hello Steph,

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,[ ])
>>>   else
>>>     AC_MSG_WARN([Phar: sha256/sha512 signature support disabled if 
>>> ext/hash
>>> is built shared])
>>>   fi
>>>  fi
>> 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.
>> Doesn├Ąt 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 
>>> zero
>>> hash support under doze otherwise.  HAVE_HASH_EXT is at least 
>>> automatic...!
>> Since I cannot test on windows I need windows developers like zou to fix
>> it.

> 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

Best regards,

PHP CVS Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Reply via email to