Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0 with OpenSSL

Stig-Ørjan Smelror wrote: > Hello all, > > I'm trying to use 4.1.0 with SSL, both with IMAP and alone, but get > this error when I try to start apache: > > apache/libexec/libphp4.so: undefined symbol: ssl_onceonlyinit > > Is this a known issue and is there a fix for it? > > > Thanks in advance.

Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0 CVS & RC4 has -02 option with --enable-debug ?

At 00:56 02/12/2001, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote: >Is this change is intended? Is it a change? Zeev -- PHP Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROT

Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0 Final RC

** Successfull Build ** Slackware 7.1 Linux postman 2.2.19 #1 SMP Fri Apr 6 15:05:23 /etc/localtime 2001 i686 unknown ./configure \ --with-apache=../apache_1.3.22 \ --with-mysql=/usr/local/mysql \ --with-gd \ --with-ttf \ --enable-debug=no \ --enable-track-vars \ --enable-memory-limit gd-1.8.3

Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0 Final RC

** Successfull Build ** Slackware 8.0 Linux osiris 2.4.14 #1 Thu Nov 8 15:02:47 CET 2001 i686 unknown ./configure \ --with-apache=../apache_1.3.22 \ --with-mysql=/usr/local/mysql \ --with-gd=/usr/local \ --with-freetype-dir=/usr/local \ --with-jpeg-dir=/usr \ --with-png-dir=/usr \ --with-openss

Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0 Final RC

** Successfull CGI Build ** SuSE 7.1 Linux linux 2.2.18 #1 Wed Jan 24 12:28:55 GMT 2001 i686 unknown ./configure \ --enable-force-cgi-redirect \ --enable-discard-path \ --disable-short-tags \ --enable-calendar \ --enable-ftp \ --with-postgres -- Zak Greant PHP Quality Assurance Team http://qa

Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0 Final RC

Built without problems on SuSE 7.2 ./configure --with-apxs=/usr/local/httpd/bin/apxs --with-mysql=/usr/local/mysql --with-gmp=/usr/local/lib/gmp Tested with all my code (including file uploads which worked perfectly) along with phpmyadmin and phorum - no problems found. Make test failed as fol

Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0 Final RC

> www.php.net/~zeev/php-4.1.0RC3.tar.gz Success report (builds and runs just fine). Seems like she's ready captain. -- Edin Red Hat Linux release 6.2 (Zoot) Linux 2.2.19 #1 SMP Tue Apr 3 11:56:18 CEST 2001 i686 unknown ./configure \ --prefix=/data/php \ --with-config-file-path=/dat

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Proposal for release process (Was: Re:[PHP-DEV]4.1.0)

I think we should be realistic about what we can and cannot pull. Using this approach as the standard release process is simply not going to work - we barely manage an RC branch and a dev branch properly, and having to maintain an old release branch sync'd with bug fixes is not going to be wi

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Proposal for release process (Was: Re:[PHP-DEV]4.1.0)

Andi Gutmans wrote: > > At 01:36 AM 11/14/2001 +0100, Stig S. Bakken wrote: > > > I didn't quite understand what you mean :) > > > All I said was that if you create a branch say "4.1.0" and you want to > > > release "4.1.x" from that branch later on whilst HEAD has already moved a > > > couple of

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Proposal for release process (Was: Re:[PHP-DEV]4.1.0)

At 01:36 AM 11/14/2001 +0100, Stig S. Bakken wrote: > > I didn't quite understand what you mean :) > > All I said was that if you create a branch say "4.1.0" and you want to > > release "4.1.x" from that branch later on whilst HEAD has already moved a > > couple of months you're going to have a ha

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Proposal for release process (Was: Re:[PHP-DEV]4.1.0)

Andi Gutmans wrote: > > At 12:31 AM 11/11/2001 +0100, Stig S. Bakken wrote: > >Andi Gutmans wrote: > > > > > > Jani, > > > > > > I think in theory what you writes makes sense but it just doesn't work in > > > the PHP project. (I'm talking about the minor versions coming out of > > > branches). Th

Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0

Zeev Suraski wrote: > The one symptom Rasmus pointed out (which was quite specific for > mbstring-xlation+zlib-compression) was MFH'd, so I think there are no > big showstoppers left. > 4.1.0RC2 sounds *OK* to me. zlib.ouput_compression/output_handler error message patch is FHMed. (While I

Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0

> A quick test on Solaris, Windows and Linux shows that returning what it now > returns is inline with the C behaviour, if we want the IMHO more logical > behaviour we shouldn't call it by its C name but somthing like > string_tokenize(). It should be a good solution, php function with C name make

Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0

> > But should it return: > > > > $str = array( > > string => "James" > > string => "Zeev" > > string => "" > > string => "Andrei" > > ) > Enduser point of view ;). IMO Should return en empty string (it is an empty string) or NULL,

Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0

> But should it return: > > $str = array( > string => "James" > string => "Zeev" > string => "" > string => "Andrei" > ) Enduser point of view ;). IMO Should return en empty string (it is an empty string) or NULL, but false has noth

Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0

On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote: > I suggest an RC2 (today?) and a release by the end of the week, or Monday > at the latest. > James - how sure are you that the fix you submitted is good and that we > won't find out afterwards that the bogus behavior was actually the right > thing to do?

Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0

> I suggest an RC2 (today?) and a release by the end of the week, or Monday > at the latest. > James - how sure are you that the fix you submitted is good and that we > won't find out afterwards that the bogus behavior was actually the right > thing to do? :) Well I know the old behaviour was wr

Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0

Code doesn't grow old. There's really no reason not to release 4.1.0, and start the 4.2.0 releasing immediately afterwards. Mixing the fact we're stressed to put out a released (due to the $_GET&friends feature) and the fact that we have several big changes in key features (sessions, file uplo

Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0

I suggest an RC2 (today?) and a release by the end of the week, or Monday at the latest. James - how sure are you that the fix you submitted is good and that we won't find out afterwards that the bogus behavior was actually the right thing to do? :) Zeev At 21:14 12/11/2001, Andrei Zmievski w

Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0

> The one symptom Rasmus pointed out (which was quite specific for > mbstring-xlation+zlib-compression) was MFH'd, so I think there are no big > showstoppers left. > Ive a fix for strtok's behaviour in HEAD but not in 4_0_7 should I merge it?? (See news for details of the fix). - James -- PHP

Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0

> On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, James Moore wrote: > > Putting out a release we arnt happy with is worse than not putting a release > > out at all. > > Just wondering what in the current branch people aren't happy with. Its too old, things are being merged in still which could work find in HEAD but could

Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0

On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote: > The one symptom Rasmus pointed out (which was quite specific for > mbstring-xlation+zlib-compression) was MFH'd, so I think there are no big > showstoppers left. I'm ++1 for releasing current branch ASAP. -Andrei The main reason Santa is so jolly is

Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0

The one symptom Rasmus pointed out (which was quite specific for mbstring-xlation+zlib-compression) was MFH'd, so I think there are no big showstoppers left. Zeev At 20:55 12/11/2001, Andrei Zmievski wrote: >On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, James Moore wrote: > > Putting out a release we arnt happy with i

Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0

On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, James Moore wrote: > Putting out a release we arnt happy with is worse than not putting a release > out at all. Just wondering what in the current branch people aren't happy with. -Andrei * http://www.zend.com/comm_person.php?id=24 * -- PHP Development Mailing List

Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0

> > i haven't really changed my mind - but i want a fast > decision. as there isn't any clear consens here i think we > should release 4.1 as-it-is-with-the-last-showstoppers-fixed > and go from there. we should also learn from this and assign > a RM for the next release! i me

Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0

On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 04:26:57PM +0200, Zeev Suraski wrote: > Guys, > > We have a bit of a dilemma here. As you all know, the 4.0.7 branch, on > which 4.1.0 is currently scheduled to be based on, has branched away a few > months ago. Some people have expressed concern that releasing 4.1.0 b

RE: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0

Title: RE: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0 Andi Gutmans wrote: [snippage] > I think that if we can fix the 1-2 show stoppers that are > still in the PHP_4_0_7 branch we should release ASAP. IMHO, this is what should happen. Best Regards  Mike Robinson  IT / Developer - Toronto Star TV

Re: [PHP-DEV] Proposal for release process (Was: Re: [PHP-DEV]4.1.0)

At 05:28 12/11/2001, Jani Taskinen wrote: >Zeev suggested at some point >that we should drop the last number altogether. I *what*? Perhaps I was high on that Kossu :) I was never in favour of dropping the 3rd digit. > That indeed would >make the current way of doing things more correct but

Re: [PHP-DEV] Proposal for release process (Was: Re: [PHP-DEV]4.1.0)

At 05:28 AM 11/12/2001 +0200, Jani Taskinen wrote: >On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Andi Gutmans wrote: > > >I didn't quite understand what you mean :) > >I didn't get it first either. :) > > >All I said was that if you create a branch say "4.1.0" and you want to > >release "4.1.x" from that branch later on

[PHP-DEV] Re: Proposal for release process (Was: Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0)

Redirecting bugs to -qa is excellent. -dev is no fun to actually subscribe to with the number of support requests alone coming in. I imagine folks have gotten pretty good at ignoring em but... Let's do it. Be nice to see the possibility of third party comments to bugs as well for confirms, worksf

Re: [PHP-DEV] Proposal for release process (Was: Re: [PHP-DEV]4.1.0)

Guys, I mentioned this in the conference. Version numbers aren't going to change anything significant. If we're concerned about the users' perception of what the version number means, moving to Jani's versioning scheme, I'm pretty confident it'll mean less to more people. The reason being t

[PHP-DEV] Re: Memory issue with output compression (was Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0)

Zeev Suraski wrote: > After some more investigation, it *might* be related to a bug that > existed in 4.0.7 with multiple levels of internal output buffering, so I > may have spoken too soon. I can't really reproduce it, so I asked Yasuo > Ohgaki to take a look at it. If it's indeed the issu

Re: [PHP-DEV] Proposal for release process (Was: Re: [PHP-DEV]4.1.0)

At 12:31 AM 11/11/2001 +0100, Stig S. Bakken wrote: >Andi Gutmans wrote: > > > > Jani, > > > > I think in theory what you writes makes sense but it just doesn't work in > > the PHP project. (I'm talking about the minor versions coming out of > > branches). There are always cries to go with HEAD be

[PHP-DEV] Re: Proposal for release process (Was: Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0)

Jani Taskinen wrote: > I have no idea who have tested the latest RC. Does anyone have? At least, you and I do :) > After the latest RC there have been a LOT of fixes in the release > branch and also several fixes in the HEAD (which weren't MFH'd) > and there hasn't been any new RCs after those

Re: [PHP-DEV] Proposal for release process (Was: Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0)

Jani Taskinen wrote: > > On Sat, 10 Nov 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote: > > >Guys, > > > >We have a bit of a dilemma here. As you all know, the 4.0.7 branch, on > >which 4.1.0 is currently scheduled to be based on, has branched away a few > >months ago. Some people have expressed concern that releas

Re: [PHP-DEV] Proposal for release process (Was: Re: [PHP-DEV]4.1.0)

Andi Gutmans wrote: > > Jani, > > I think in theory what you writes makes sense but it just doesn't work in > the PHP project. (I'm talking about the minor versions coming out of > branches). There are always cries to go with HEAD because it's got new > goodies (I think it often makes sense) and

Re: [PHP-DEV] Proposal for release process (Was: Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0)

PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 4:34 PM >Subject: [PHP-DEV] Proposal for release process (Was: Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0) > > >> On Sat, 10 Nov 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote: >> >> >Guys, >

Re: [PHP-DEV] Proposal for release process (Was: Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0)

n" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 4:34 PM Subject: [PHP-DEV] Proposal for release process (Was: Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0) > On Sat, 10 Nov 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote: > > >Guys, > > > >We h

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Proposal for release process (Was: Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0)

> >We have a bit of a dilemma here. As you all know, the 4.0.7 branch, on > >which 4.1.0 is currently scheduled to be based on, has branched away a few > >months ago. Some people have expressed concern that releasing 4.1.0 based > >on that branch is not a good idea, because there have been so

Re: [PHP-DEV] Proposal for release process (Was: Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0)

Jani, I think in theory what you writes makes sense but it just doesn't work in the PHP project. (I'm talking about the minor versions coming out of branches). There are always cries to go with HEAD because it's got new goodies (I think it often makes sense) and then people don't want to rele

Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0

At 07:43 AM 11/10/2001 -0800, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: >I think the assumption that the PHP_4_0_7 branch is "pretty stable" and >"pretty much ready to go" is the key here. How do you know? I think it >is up to the QA team to tell us if this is the case. From what I can see, >I don't think this is

[PHP-DEV] Proposal for release process (Was: Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0)

On Sat, 10 Nov 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote: >Guys, > >We have a bit of a dilemma here. As you all know, the 4.0.7 branch, on >which 4.1.0 is currently scheduled to be based on, has branched away a few >months ago. Some people have expressed concern that releasing 4.1.0 based >on that branch is not

[PHP-DEV] Memory issue with output compression (was Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0)

After some more investigation, it *might* be related to a bug that existed in 4.0.7 with multiple levels of internal output buffering, so I may have spoken too soon. I can't really reproduce it, so I asked Yasuo Ohgaki to take a look at it. If it's indeed the issue, it's a one line fix that c

Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0

Rasmus - whatever that issue is, it has not been fixed in HEAD. Zeev At 17:43 10/11/2001, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: >I think the assumption that the PHP_4_0_7 branch is "pretty stable" and >"pretty much ready to go" is the key here. How do you know? I think it >is up to the QA team to tell us if t

Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0

At 17:43 10/11/2001, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: >I think the assumption that the PHP_4_0_7 branch is "pretty stable" and >"pretty much ready to go" is the key here. How do you know? I think it >is up to the QA team to tell us if this is the case. From what I can see, >I don't think this is so. Fro

Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0

I think the assumption that the PHP_4_0_7 branch is "pretty stable" and "pretty much ready to go" is the key here. How do you know? I think it is up to the QA team to tell us if this is the case. From what I can see, I don't think this is so. Jani, did you ever resolve that issue you post