On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 02:03:40PM -0700, brad lafountain wrote:
We are only talking about a few cvs commands here! We aren't talking about a
huge effort.
Any effort like this seems like duplicated effort to me.
I don't see bad merges a problem here. It's not like I would be applying
At 07:16 PM 5/30/2002, Stig S. Bakken wrote:
On Thu, 2002-05-30 at 18:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2002, brad lafountain wrote:
The 2M size has alot of stuff that we wouldn't need. Im sure we can
get it
down to under 500K.
I still think 500kb is too much for
At 07:08 PM 5/30/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2002, brad lafountain wrote:
The 2M size has alot of stuff that we wouldn't need. Im sure we can get it
down to under 500K.
I still think 500kb is too much for something the most ppl already have
installed.
How do you figure
At 11:39 PM 5/30/2002, Dan Kalowsky wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2002, brad lafountain wrote:
I personally will take responsiblity for bundling and upgrading it.
As Rasmus stated earlier the reason the MySQL stuff is bundled is due to
an assurance from the MySQL developers to keep it updated.
I
list
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] bundling libxml2 / bundling locations
At 11:39 PM 5/30/2002, Dan Kalowsky wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2002, brad lafountain wrote:
I personally will take responsiblity for bundling and upgrading it.
As Rasmus stated earlier the reason the MySQL stuff is bundled is due
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Zeev Suraski wrote:
As Rasmus stated earlier the reason the MySQL stuff is bundled is due to
an assurance from the MySQL developers to keep it updated.
I don't think such an assurance existed to begin with, and whether it
existed or not, it definitely wasn't the case in
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Zeev Suraski wrote:
As Rasmus stated earlier the reason the MySQL stuff is bundled is due to
an assurance from the MySQL developers to keep it updated.
I don't think such an assurance existed to begin with, and whether it
existed or not, it definitely wasn't the
Now on Windows or similar systems, where the average user is not used to
system administration (witness the number of codered attacks still going
around), we can pack all these dependant binary libraries into the
installer. I'm not sure who builds the installer, but I know I could make
one
On Wed, 29 May 2002, Alexander Wagner wrote:
But take ext/domxml it requires a newerversion of libxml2. I didn't
have it installed on my machine when i installed php. If we bundle
say a specfic version of libxml2 that domxml depends on, then it
won't matter how fast pased the
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
Brad Lafountain wrote:
But take ext/domxml it requires a newerversion of libxml2. I didn't have it
installed on my machine when i installed php. If we bundle say a specfic
version of libxml2 that domxml depends on, then it won't matter how fast
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
Markus Fischer wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 09:58:31AM +0900, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote :
Markus Fischer wrote:
Build outta the box
+1 for libxml2 bundle. This already discussed, isn't this?
-1
It's very actively developed. What is
On Wed, 29 May 2002, brad lafountain wrote:
My point of view is domxml does require a newish version of libxml2. It't not
going to hurt if we bundle that version with php. The configure script can even
It does hurt... adding almost 2 MB to a distribution is simply insane IMO.
Even people who
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Andi Gutmans wrote:
I think that XML is a core technology and giving plugplay access to our
users is important. Having bundled the MySQL library made it easier for
people to get started with MySQL. Does that mean I think every library
should be bundled with PHP? No, I
Dan:
If we start down this path of bundling external projects, why don't we
just bundle every external project PHP supports to make it the easiest?
This is just an absurd notion to bundle an actively developed/maintained
piece of code. The headaches it will introduce are not worth the minor
Hi,
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 07:43:24AM +0300, Andi Gutmans wrote :
But if libxml2 is a moving target and it's hard to stay in sync then it
certainly sounds beneficial to take away this headache from our users.
It seems we need to define 'hard to stay in sync'. The only
hard
Hi,
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 10:06:50AM +0300, Marko Karppinen wrote :
Dan:
If we start down this path of bundling external projects, why don't we
just bundle every external project PHP supports to make it the easiest?
This is just an absurd notion to bundle an actively
Markus:
Honestly I see this being a point beyond the task of PECL.
There are too many things which can get fucked up (I just see
a secenery where someone accidantly installs libxml2 through
PECL though he has it in the system but in a non-standard
path). Really, this does not belong to PECL
Hi,
ok, missed that. But i hope you know this would only really
work on Windows I guess. Even sharing binaries from one Linux
distribution to another is not possible sometimes because of
the different GLIBCs used. IMHO that cries for more work then
there would be benefit
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Marko Karppinen wrote:
I think the solution would be to allow PECL to optionally fetch the
libraries an extension depends on, quite like FreeBSD ports.
While this idea would be excellent, any recent readings on the FreeBSD
list you'll find the limitations of the ports
Ignore that, Marko clarified his stance much better later. I really need
to finish reading the overnight discussions before sending a reply.
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 10:53:38AM -0700, brad lafountain wrote:
It was mentioned before about bundling libxml2 with php with expat or instead
of expat. Where do we stand with this? I emailed the developer asking
permission to bundle it if we choose to do it (no response yet).
for the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The libxml project provides their own RPMs, so building them yourself is
not really needed.
Great! I'll check the spec file to see if I can use it out
of box.
--
Yasuo Ohgaki
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe, visit:
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Andi Gutmans wrote:
I think that XML is a core technology and giving plugplay access to our
users is important. Having bundled the MySQL library made it easier for
people to get started with MySQL. Does that mean I think every library
On Thu, 30 May 2002, brad lafountain wrote:
The 2M size has alot of stuff that we wouldn't need. Im sure we can get it
down to under 500K.
I still think 500kb is too much for something the most ppl already have
installed.
Derick
On Thu, 2002-05-30 at 02:04, Markus Fischer wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 08:12:27AM +0900, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote :
Brad Lafountain wrote:
Ok,
But take ext/domxml it requires a newerversion of libxml2. I didn't have
it
installed on my machine when i installed php. If we bundle
We bundle mysql for the very same reason Brad wants to bundle libxml2.
Except with MySQL we have a commitment from the MySQL developers
themselves to maintain it and keep it current.
-Rasmus
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe, visit:
On Thu, 2002-05-30 at 03:29, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
I think we can remove expat bundle now.)
Think again :-) Expat has been bundled for ages, and IMHO we should not
drop it unless we have another bundled xml library and ext/xml can use
that instead.
- Stig
--
PHP Development Mailing List
On Thu, 2002-05-30 at 18:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2002, brad lafountain wrote:
The 2M size has alot of stuff that we wouldn't need. Im sure we can get it
down to under 500K.
I still think 500kb is too much for something the most ppl already have
installed.
Having
At 08:46 30/05/2002 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Andi Gutmans wrote:
I think that XML is a core technology and giving plugplay access to our
users is important. Having bundled the MySQL library made it easier for
people to get started with MySQL. Does that mean I
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Except with MySQL we have a commitment from the MySQL developers
themselves to maintain it and keep it current.
Which they do very often, isn't it Zak ;) But there is a point, there is
much more familiarity between MySQL and PHP then between the
At 19:03 30/05/2002 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Except with MySQL we have a commitment from the MySQL developers
themselves to maintain it and keep it current.
Which they do very often, isn't it Zak ;) But there is a point, there is
much more
lot I'd
be a +1. If it'd add 1 MB to our .tar.gz I would be against.
THe normal source distribution is almost 2 MB...
In that case I'm against :)
Andi
xpat is 300K. If Brad can get it down to 500K, and we replace xpat,
then we realy are not growing all that much. I'm for doing
--- Stig S. Bakken [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2002-05-30 at 18:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2002, brad lafountain wrote:
The 2M size has alot of stuff that we wouldn't need. Im sure we can get
it
down to under 500K.
I still think 500kb is too much for
Hi
I still would like to see it bundled. I do understand that libxml2 is being
developed regulary but since domxml does require a semi-new version of libxml2
that most people don't have. I don't know when 2.4.14 was released but the date
on the file server is 2/8/2002. Thats pretty recent.
At 19:29 30.05.2002, brad lafountain wrote:
--- Stig S. Bakken [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2002-05-30 at 18:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2002, brad lafountain wrote:
The 2M size has alot of stuff that we wouldn't need. Im sure we
can get
it
down to under
In regards to download size, I took a look at other languages:
perl 6mb source
python 6mb source
activeperl 8.5mb binary
activepython 7mb source, binaries are larger
activetcl 8.5mb
I don't think the increase of a half mb in php source size is that big a
deal, esp. for something as important
On Thu, 30 May 2002, brad lafountain wrote:
I personally will take responsiblity for bundling and upgrading it.
Brad,
Nothing personal (so please don't take it that way), but in my opinion
this isn't a good enough assurance. Historically you will see people
come and people go with Open
--- Dan Kalowsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2002, brad lafountain wrote:
I personally will take responsiblity for bundling and upgrading it.
Brad,
Nothing personal (so please don't take it that way), but in my opinion
this isn't a good enough assurance. Historically you
At 16:39 30/05/2002 -0400, Dan Kalowsky wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2002, brad lafountain wrote:
I personally will take responsiblity for bundling and upgrading it.
Brad,
Nothing personal (so please don't take it that way), but in my opinion
this isn't a good enough assurance. Historically you
Months from now I honistly can't say what i'll be doing. For all I know i
could get hit by a car. I don't plan on ditching my contributions anytime soon.
But I don't see my contributions a factor in deciding if we should bundle
libxml.
Exactly the unspoken point. While I'm not saying you
Hello all,
It was mentioned before about bundling libxml2 with php with expat or instead
of expat. Where do we stand with this? I emailed the developer asking
permission to bundle it if we choose to do it (no response yet).
Also I remember reading on here before someone suggested putting
On Wed, 29 May 2002, brad lafountain wrote:
Hello all,
It was mentioned before about bundling libxml2 with php with expat or instead
of expat. Where do we stand with this? I emailed the developer asking
permission to bundle it if we choose to do it (no response yet).
öhm, libxml2 is a
Ok,
But take ext/domxml it requires a newerversion of libxml2. I didn't have it
installed on my machine when i installed php. If we bundle say a specfic
version of libxml2 that domxml depends on, then it won't matter how fast pased
the development is, ext/domxml won't use it. We can obvisouly
brad lafountain wrote:
Ok,
But take ext/domxml it requires a newerversion of libxml2. I didn't
have it installed on my machine when i installed php. If we bundle
say a specfic version of libxml2 that domxml depends on, then it
won't matter how fast pased the development is, ext/domxml
Brad Lafountain wrote:
Ok,
But take ext/domxml it requires a newerversion of libxml2. I didn't have it
installed on my machine when i installed php. If we bundle say a specfic
version of libxml2 that domxml depends on, then it won't matter how fast pased
the development is, ext/domxml
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 08:12:27AM +0900, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote :
Brad Lafountain wrote:
Ok,
But take ext/domxml it requires a newerversion of libxml2. I didn't have
it
installed on my machine when i installed php. If we bundle say a specfic
version of libxml2 that domxml depends on,
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 09:58:31AM +0900, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote :
Markus Fischer wrote:
Build outta the box
+1 for libxml2 bundle. This already discussed, isn't this?
-1
It's very actively developed. What is the reason of shared
libraries if we don't use it?! GD is a
Markus Fischer wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 09:58:31AM +0900, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote :
Markus Fischer wrote:
Build outta the box
+1 for libxml2 bundle. This already discussed, isn't this?
-1
It's very actively developed. What is the reason of shared
libraries if we don't use it?!
My point of view is domxml does require a newish version of libxml2. It't not
going to hurt if we bundle that version with php. The configure script can even
detect a version that is installed on the system. If its greater than the
packaged one then it can use that one instead alsogive the user
I think that XML is a core technology and giving plugplay access to our
users is important. Having bundled the MySQL library made it easier for
people to get started with MySQL. Does that mean I think every library
should be bundled with PHP? No, I don't.
But if libxml2 is a moving target and
50 matches
Mail list logo
