Hi Guys,
Now most people seem to be back and over their new year's hangovers I'd
like to jump start RC1.
As discussed, we should start the process of cleaning up for RC1. I think
we should try and target for the end of January.
I suggest each extension maintainer go through his bugs and check
From: Edin Kadribasic
Some major win32 build issues that need to be dealt with before RC1:
1. php4 - php5 rename
2. bundling of libxml2 and dealing with linking issues (static vs.
dynamic)
3. getting rid of external dll dependancies (iconv.dll atm) which is
related to issue (2)
Took a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 19 November 2003 13:38, Rob Richards wrote:
All but the iconv linking worked, though to export the libxml2 symbols we
would need a def file or include all its headers, otherwise only a subset
get exported which a few functions were
From: Edin Kadribasic
Do you think you can maintain PHP's binary of libxml that suits our needs
including the .def file.
Yes, this shouldnt too difficult once I can get the environment setup for
the libxml/libxslt release builds.
Does any xml we use require libxml2 to be compiled with iconv?
From: Zeev Suraski
I've been using static builds of iconv and libxml2 for quite some time.
Do
you need the .dsp's?
Thanks, but other than the iconv question, libxml is the easy part in all of
this, unless of course you already have iconv being exported from libxml in
the dsp.
I believe Edin
Yes the SAPI codes are changed (php5_execute was my example from NSAPI
SAPI). But the filenames in the win32 distrib are still php4_xxx.dll (see
snapshot compile log).
At 21:49 12.11.2003, you wrote:
Marcus Boerger wrote:
I installed php5 from ./makerpm today and yes i needed to
LoadModule
At 03:20 13/11/2003, Shane Caraveo wrote:
Zeev Suraski wrote:
My suggestion - we'll work on fixing ZE2 bugs (*). Fix as many as we can
as soon as possible, and aim to release on Dec 15. Worst case - we'll
delay to Xmas. If enough changes accumulate - we can have B3 too, but
I'm not sure it
Hi Folks:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 09:26:37AM +0100, Uwe Schindler wrote:
But the filenames in the win32 distrib are still php4_xxx.dll (see
snapshot compile log).
This was one thing that concerned me about the new version. It would be
_really_ nice if the PHP 5 DLL's would be given different
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Analysis Solutions wrote:
The ability to run two versions at once makes compatibility testing way
easier for developers making software that uses PHP. For example, during
the transition from PHP 3 to PHP 4, I had .htm extensions mapped to PHP 3
and .html extensions mapped
Alle 19:42, giovedì 13 novembre 2003, Jani Taskinen ha scritto:
I made the necessary changes for that to be possible in the config
side..
So you managed to run both php4 and php5 as DSO on the same instance of
the server? How did you do it? (it's really interesting, and it's a
pity that this
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Cesare D'Amico wrote:
Alle 19:42, giovedì 13 novembre 2003, Jani Taskinen ha scritto:
I made the necessary changes for that to be possible in the config
side..
So you managed to run both php4 and php5 as DSO on the same instance of
the server? How did you do it? (it's
At 07:37 12/11/2003, Stig S. Bakken wrote:
Yes, but it's not only the engine that would be going into RC, it's the
entire distribution.
John has a very good point in that some of the changes that people are
looking to PHP 5 for will be extension specific, releasing an RC before
the extensions are
Uwe Schindler wrote:
One important thing before RC1 is to fix the libraray filenames on
Windows to be php5.dll. How is the status about that?
I'll do the diff file next Saturday. But we will need to rename some
files in case a php4... name doesn't sound right.
Oliver
--
GB/E/IT d+ s+:+ a--
Zeev Suraski wrote:
Now, while popping mail over a 24,000bps modem in some hotel in Tokyo, I
just saw that Andi suggested that we go for Beta 3 around Nov 30. To be
honest - again, given the relative lack of wide feedback for the betas -
I don't think it will be very beneficial, but I don't
How about function names (in my SAPI module I changed everything from for
example php4_execute to php5_execute for NSAPI). How about Apache and the
others? Should be there some in-code fixes, too?
At 16:49 12.11.2003, Olivier Hill wrote:
Uwe Schindler wrote:
One important thing before RC1 is to
Uwe Schindler wrote:
How about function names (in my SAPI module I changed everything from
for example php4_execute to php5_execute for NSAPI). How about Apache
and the others? Should be there some in-code fixes, too?
You mean like php5_apache.dll should be loaded with a:
LoadModule mod_php5
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Zeev Suraski wrote:
(*) I think many of those are actually old ZE1 bugs that were tested to
also break ZE2, and given the fact I told Jani that ZE1 bugs are second
priority, he retagged them as ZE2 bugs. You may have to keep them for
downwards compatibility ;)
Zeev Suraski wrote:
My suggestion - we'll work on fixing ZE2 bugs (*). Fix as many as we
can as soon as possible, and aim to release on Dec 15. Worst case -
we'll delay to Xmas. If enough changes accumulate - we can have B3 too,
but I'm not sure it will be necessary, because the betas don't
Hello Olivier,
Wednesday, November 12, 2003, 5:12:37 PM, you wrote:
Uwe Schindler wrote:
How about function names (in my SAPI module I changed everything from
for example php4_execute to php5_execute for NSAPI). How about Apache
and the others? Should be there some in-code fixes, too?
Marcus Boerger wrote:
I installed php5 from ./makerpm today and yes i needed to
LoadModule mod_php5 php5_apache.dll (if i were on windows)
Hello Marcus,
Well, that's what I though. IIRC, the last time I tried PHP5 under
Windows, the Apache SAPI code was changed. I was uncertain what Uwe
meant
Hello Zeev,
Wednesday, November 12, 2003, 3:14:27 PM, you wrote:
[...]
BTW - I agree with Edin about some issues that need to be solved, with the
most important one IMHO being libxml bundling. In all efforts to avoid a
thread on this subject of any shape or form - I'd really like to push
Hello Thies,
Wednesday, November 12, 2003, 9:47:01 PM, you wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 09:44:23PM +0100, Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Olivier,
Wednesday, November 12, 2003, 5:12:37 PM, you wrote:
Uwe Schindler wrote:
How about function names (in my SAPI module I changed everything
Marcus Boerger wrote:
have some machines that build for the important distributions.
I'm planning to install Fedora in a VMware somewhen soon so I could run
makerpm for this distribution.
--
Sebastian Bergmann
http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ http://phpOpenTracker.de/
Das
Hey guys,
I think the PHP 5 tree has matured a lot and it's time to release an RC. I
think end of November or mid-December makes sense. I'd like to aim at the
former date.
Are there any major (as in major) issues which in your
opinion still need to be dealt with?
Thanks,
Andi
--
PHP Internals
Hi!
I think the PHP 5 tree has matured a lot and it's time to release an RC. I
think end of November or mid-December makes sense. I'd like to aim at the
former date.
thats too fast, or do you mean Nov/Dec. 2004? Why such a hurry? Shouldn't we
have a feature freeze first and try to release a
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 10:01:32PM +0100, Stig S. Bakken wrote:
On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 19:05, Andi Gutmans wrote:
Hey guys,
I think the PHP 5 tree has matured a lot and it's time to release an RC. I
think end of November or mid-December makes sense. I'd like to aim at the
former date.
At 09:56 PM 11/11/2003 +0100, Georg Richter wrote:
I think the PHP 5 tree has matured a lot and it's time to release an RC. I
think end of November or mid-December makes sense. I'd like to aim at the
former date.
thats too fast, or do you mean Nov/Dec. 2004? Why such a hurry? Shouldn't we
have
Andi,
According to:
At 10:08 PM 11/11/2003 +0100, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 10:01:32PM +0100, Stig S. Bakken wrote:
On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 19:05, Andi Gutmans wrote:
Hey guys,
I think the PHP 5 tree has matured a lot and it's time to release an
RC. I
think end of November or
I went over this list today. Some need to be addressed but the majority are
not engine problems.
I suggest everyone here takes a look at them and tries to solve what they can.
I have already planned time to go over the engine ones.
Andi
At 04:29 PM 11/11/2003 -0500, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
Hi,
I think the PHP 5 tree has matured a lot and it's time to release
an RC. I
think end of November or mid-December makes sense. I'd like to aim at the
former date.
Are there any major (as in major) issues which in
At 10:39 PM 11/11/2003 +0100, Wolfgang Drews wrote:
*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
Hi,
I think the PHP 5 tree has matured a lot and it's time to release
an RC. I
think end of November or mid-December makes sense. I'd like to aim at the
former date.
To be honest, I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. Basically, the
engine is done. I think the XML extensions and SQLite are pretty mature,
I know Shane was working on some major improvements to simplexml that I
don't know if he's finished yet. Sterling didn't seem to have any
*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
I agree. I think we need to take care of this. I wouldn't count
on any one
company for this (although this is also important).
How about the people from internals@ who made changes volunteer to write
about their
Oh, and let's not forget Pierre's PIMP extension -- anyone who has seen
his code/slides knows that it blows GD out of the water and he's still
cleaning things up there too.
John
On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 17:03, John Coggeshall wrote:
To be honest, I think the answer is somewhere in the middle.
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, John Coggeshall wrote:
I know Shane was working on some major improvements to simplexml that I
don't know if he's finished yet. Sterling didn't seem to have any
interest in really finishing the code he did write from our
conversations.
I know that Shane is also porting
Adam Maccabee Trachtenberg wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, John Coggeshall wrote:
I know Shane was working on some major improvements to simplexml that I
don't know if he's finished yet. Sterling didn't seem to have any
interest in really finishing the code he did write from our
conversations.
I
John Coggeshall wrote:
To be honest, I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. Basically, the
engine is done. I think the XML extensions and SQLite are pretty mature,
I know Shane was working on some major improvements to simplexml that I
don't know if he's finished yet. Sterling didn't
Yes, but it's not only the engine that would be going into RC, it's the
entire distribution.
John has a very good point in that some of the changes that people are
looking to PHP 5 for will be extension specific, releasing an RC before
the extensions are more or less stable doesn't make sense to
Sorry to interject, but shouldn't the feature set be frozen before
moving to a release candidate? This stage should mean to people that
they can start building software on the new system because all the
features are fixed and are not going to change, even though the system
may still have bugs
Derick Rethans wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Shane Caraveo wrote:
Adam Maccabee Trachtenberg wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, John Coggeshall wrote:
I know Shane was working on some major improvements to simplexml that I
don't know if he's finished yet. Sterling didn't seem to have any
interest in
On Tuesday, Nov 11, 2003, at 19:05 Europe/Copenhagen, Andi Gutmans
wrote:
Hey guys,
I think the PHP 5 tree has matured a lot and it's time to release an
RC. I think end of November or mid-December makes sense. I'd like to
aim at the former date.
Are there any major (as in major) issues which
This one time, at band camp, Wolfgang Drews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
I agree. I think we need to take care of this. I wouldn't count
on any one
company for this (although this is also important).
How about the
This one time, at band camp, Wolfgang Drews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
I agree. I think we need to take care of this. I wouldn't count
on any one
company for this (although this is also important).
How about the
Edin Kadribasic wrote:
Some major win32 build issues that need to be dealt with before RC1:
1. php4 - php5 rename
I've submitted different .dsp/.dsw files to fix this problem, and I even
posted a diff file to do the same job. No one responded and no one
commited it.
Oliver
--
GB/E/IT d+ s+:+
On Wednesday, Nov 12, 2003, at 02:21 Europe/Copenhagen, Olivier Hill
wrote:
Edin Kadribasic wrote:
Some major win32 build issues that need to be dealt with before RC1:
1. php4 - php5 rename
I've submitted different .dsp/.dsw files to fix this problem, and I
even posted a diff file to do the
Edin Kadribasic wrote:
This was entirely my fault. Any chance of getting an updated diff? And I
promise it will it will not be overlooked this time :)
I don't blame anyone, I just though the patch wasn't welcome.
If you can wait until next Saturday, I'll do my magic again (not
really... maybe
Forgive me for the shameless plug, but since I work for the company who
owns the site I couldn't help but throw in you can always post the new
articles about PHP5 here:
www.devpapers.com
Jeremy
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 06:15, Kevin Waterson wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Wolfgang Drews
Stig S. Bakken wrote:
John has a very good point in that some of the changes that people
are looking to PHP 5 for will be extension specific, releasing an
RC before the extensions are more or less stable doesn't make sense
to me.
Also do not forget that PHP 5 currently lacks extensions that
Hello Andi,
Tuesday, November 11, 2003, 10:23:59 PM, you wrote:
[...]
I also don't think we should be waiting for new extensions like PDO. It is
impossible to synchronize with every extension out there. PDO sounds like
it'll be something really useful, and when it's ready and useful enough
50 matches
Mail list logo
