php-windows Digest 8 Jun 2011 07:17:59 -0000 Issue 3956
Topics (messages 30646 through 30655):
Re: [PHP-DEV] Windows builds
30646 by: Pierre Joye
30647 by: Lester Caine
30650 by: Philip Olson
30651 by: Pierre Joye
30652 by: Philip Olson
30653 by: Pierre Joye
30654 by: Philip Olson
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-WIN] Re: [PHP-DEV] Windows builds
30648 by: Rasmus
30649 by: Jason
binary-tools.zip
30655 by: Lester Caine
Administrivia:
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
php-windows-digest-subscr...@lists.php.net
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
php-windows-digest-unsubscr...@lists.php.net
To post to the list, e-mail:
php-wind...@lists.php.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--- Begin Message ---
Lester,
We are now all aware of your constant bashing about our work for php
on windows, but could you please give us some rest and post this
wherever you like.
And no you won't get a official ok for this build or any other but
what we have already numerous times discuss. The same applies even
more for x64 versions.
Thanks for your understanding,
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Lester Caine <les...@lsces.co.uk> wrote:
> I've cross posted to the windows list as this is a useful link!
>
> http://www.anindya.com/
>
> I don't feel quite so bad now about not being able to update my own builds,
> but a matching Additional Extensions section for the x86 builds would just
> finish the picture.
>
> I'm just waiting for an OK to use the links in my own tutorials.
>
> --
> Lester Caine - G8HFL
> -----------------------------
> Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
> L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
> EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
> Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
> Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Pierre Joye wrote:
Lester,
We are now all aware of your constant bashing about our work for php
on windows, but could you please give us some rest and post this
wherever you like.
And no you won't get a official ok for this build or any other but
what we have already numerous times discuss. The same applies even
more for x64 versions.
No problem ... I'm not asking ... but future Firebird builds will only work
fully with 64 bit installations.
If anybody is interested
http://enquirysolve.co.uk/wiki/index.php?page=Windows+Manual+-+FWAP+Installation
replaces the one from 2006 which can't be used now to carry out a current
working install.
Still very much work in progress - I've been working on this since last night -
I need to sort out how to unzip the php files on Windows 7 - I said no to the
RAR trial and did not ralise that it also kills zip handling! :(
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> I don't feel quite so bad now about not being able to update my own builds,
> but a matching Additional Extensions section for the x86 builds would just
> finish the picture.
If the PHP+Windows community developed a reliable system that built [most] all
PECL extensions, then we would link to that within the PHP Manual. And if such
a system was moved to a php.net server, then DLL download links could also be
added to each individual pecl.php.net page.
Regards,
Philip
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Philip Olson <phi...@roshambo.org> wrote:
>> I don't feel quite so bad now about not being able to update my own builds,
>> but a matching Additional Extensions section for the x86 builds would just
>> finish the picture.
>
> If the PHP+Windows community developed a reliable system that built [most]
> all PECL extensions, then we would link to that within the PHP Manual. And if
> such a system was moved to a php.net server, then DLL download links could
> also be added to each individual pecl.php.net page.
There is an easy way to build pecl extension and yes, pecl.php.net
will be the place to provide them as well. In the meantime I uploaded
them in the link I pasted earlier. But it happens that things can
happen when people actually do the work, and not only complain
endlessly in all possible channels.
Cheers,
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Jun 7, 2011, at 10:11 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Philip Olson <phi...@roshambo.org> wrote:
>>> I don't feel quite so bad now about not being able to update my own builds,
>>> but a matching Additional Extensions section for the x86 builds would just
>>> finish the picture.
>>
>> If the PHP+Windows community developed a reliable system that built [most]
>> all PECL extensions, then we would link to that within the PHP Manual. And
>> if such a system was moved to a php.net server, then DLL download links
>> could also be added to each individual pecl.php.net page.
>
> There is an easy way to build pecl extension and yes, pecl.php.net
> will be the place to provide them as well. In the meantime I uploaded
> them in the link I pasted earlier. But it happens that things can
> happen when people actually do the work, and not only complain
> endlessly in all possible channels.
And this is a call for someone or some people to do the work by raising a hand,
posting an RFC, writing code, whatever it takes. But I think people assume
either it's going to eventually happen, or that php.net is happy with the
current situation. In other words, we need an official progress report and
position on the manner. Thoughts?
Regards,
Philip
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Philip Olson <phi...@roshambo.org> wrote:
> And this is a call for someone or some people to do the work by raising a
> hand, posting an RFC, writing code, whatever it takes. But I think people
> assume either it's going to eventually happen, or that php.net is happy with
> the current situation. In other words, we need an official progress report
> and position on the manner. Thoughts?
There is an official report and that's phpize support being almost
complete, that finally two persons seem to be willing to help with the
web frontend parts of the job. Wiki sections with the progress will
follow as well. So please do not interfere with that as it could be
finally take off and the last we need is even more confusions and
politics. Once it is place, I will make the change in the docs
accordingly.
But about linking some random, uncontrolled and especially ones
provided by the initial poster in this thread in our documentation is
an absolute no go. The reasons are numerous and quite obvious if you
have followed the archives.
Cheers,
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Jun 7, 2011, at 11:10 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Philip Olson <phi...@roshambo.org> wrote:
>
>> And this is a call for someone or some people to do the work by raising a
>> hand, posting an RFC, writing code, whatever it takes. But I think people
>> assume either it's going to eventually happen, or that php.net is happy with
>> the current situation. In other words, we need an official progress report
>> and position on the manner. Thoughts?
>
> There is an official report and that's phpize support being almost
> complete, that finally two persons seem to be willing to help with the
> web frontend parts of the job. Wiki sections with the progress will
> follow as well. So please do not interfere with that as it could be
> finally take off and the last we need is even more confusions and
> politics. Once it is place, I will make the change in the docs
> accordingly.
My intent is to push progress and gain clarity.
> But about linking some random, uncontrolled and especially ones
> provided by the initial poster in this thread in our documentation is
> an absolute no go. The reasons are numerous and quite obvious if you
> have followed the archives.
I'm happy to hear progress is being made.
Regards,
Philip
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 06/07/2011 09:36 AM, Lester Caine wrote:
> Pierre Joye wrote:
>> Lester,
>>
>> We are now all aware of your constant bashing about our work for php
>> on windows, but could you please give us some rest and post this
>> wherever you like.
>>
>> And no you won't get a official ok for this build or any other but
>> what we have already numerous times discuss. The same applies even
>> more for x64 versions.
>
> No problem ... I'm not asking ... but future Firebird builds will only
> work fully with 64 bit installations.
I can see it making sense to have a 64-bit build of a Database, but
clients that just talk to it over a socket using some socket protocol
shouldn't in any way be required to also be 64-bit. Same goes for your
Web server and PHP if you use the recommended FastCGI mechanism. Again
there is a nice separation between the two, so you don't need to match
build environments there either.
-Rasmus
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rasmus [mailto:ras...@lerdorf.com]
>Sent: 07 June 2011 13:53
>To: Lester Caine
>Cc: php-windows; PHP internals
>Subject: [PHP-WIN] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-WIN] Re: [PHP-DEV] Windows builds
>
>On 06/07/2011 09:36 AM, Lester Caine wrote:
>> Pierre Joye wrote:
>>> Lester,
>>>
>>> We are now all aware of your constant bashing about our work for php
>>> on windows, but could you please give us some rest and post this
>>> wherever you like.
>>>
>>> And no you won't get a official ok for this build or any other but
>>> what we have already numerous times discuss. The same applies even
>>> more for x64 versions.
>>
>> No problem ... I'm not asking ... but future Firebird builds will only
>> work fully with 64 bit installations.
>
>I can see it making sense to have a 64-bit build of a Database, but
>clients that just talk to it over a socket using some socket protocol
>shouldn't in any way be required to also be 64-bit. Same goes for your
>Web server and PHP if you use the recommended FastCGI mechanism. Again
>there is a nice separation between the two, so you don't need to match
>build environments there either.
One use of an x64 build (on windows at least) is to allow a script running
from the command line to access more than 2GB of memory (as x86 windows
executables are hard limited to that). Or via FastCGI for that matter,
although quite why you would allow such a situation to happen is beyond me.
J
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Pierre - I've been having problems with the VS2008 tool chain on the Vista box,
so I'm staring again clean on a new Windows7 box.
Question 1 ... should we stay with VS2008 or will VS2010 work - with SDK6.1? My
embarcadero tool chain has already updated to SDK7 and while none of my own
legacy C++ code will compile yet I don't think I am tied to any particular version.
Main problem though is access to binary-tools.zip which is still showing as down
because of the security problem. I have a copy here from 2 years ago, and I
assume that it's the same?
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
--- End Message ---
