On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 03:48:35AM -0500, Brad Smith wrote:

> On 12/02/14 03:40, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> >It's better to read the 5.6 ini file...
> >
> >     -Otto
> 
> Nice catch! How long were you scratching your head wondering why it
> wasn't doing what you expected?

Nothing a little ktrace'ing doesn't cure ;-)

Anyway, please do this, I am afraid to touch ports ;-)

        -Otto

> 
> OK.
> 
> I also noticed for the 5.3 / 5.4 ports that php_ini.c has ${PV} instead
> of the hardcoded version even though with substitution via the
> pre-configure target in lang/php/Makefile.inc the end result is
> the same. Too easy for the substituted version to come back into the
> patch if running update-patches after patching / substitution. Could
> you please look at patching both 5.5 / 5.6 so they are all the same?
> 
> When you make a change like this you also need to bump REVISION in
> 5.5/Makefile and 5.6/Makefile since the resulting binary changes.
> 
> >Index: patch-main_php_ini_c
> >===================================================================
> >RCS file: /cvs/ports/lang/php/5.6/patches/patch-main_php_ini_c,v
> >retrieving revision 1.1
> >diff -u -p -r1.1 patch-main_php_ini_c
> >--- patch-main_php_ini_c     15 Nov 2014 13:43:01 -0000      1.1
> >+++ patch-main_php_ini_c     2 Dec 2014 08:38:43 -0000
> >@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ $OpenBSD: patch-main_php_ini_c,v 1.1 201
> >             /* If still no ini file found, search for php.ini file in 
> > search path */
> >             if (!fh.handle.fp) {
> >  -                  fh.handle.fp = php_fopen_with_path("php.ini", "r", 
> > php_ini_search_path, &php_ini_opened_path TSRMLS_CC);
> >-+                   fh.handle.fp = php_fopen_with_path("php-5.5.ini", "r", 
> >php_ini_search_path, &php_ini_opened_path TSRMLS_CC);
> >++                   fh.handle.fp = php_fopen_with_path("php-5.6.ini", "r", 
> >php_ini_search_path, &php_ini_opened_path TSRMLS_CC);
> >                     if (fh.handle.fp) {
> >                             fh.filename = php_ini_opened_path;
> >                     }
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.

Reply via email to