From Fedora at FamilleCollet.com Sun Mar 1 07:39:05 2009 From: Fedora at FamilleCollet.com (Remi Collet) Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 08:39:05 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] [Fwd: Package: php-5.2.9-1.fc11 Tag: dist-f11 Status: complete Built by: remi] Message-ID: <49AA3B99.60204@FamilleCollet.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, you probably noticed I've push 5.2.9 to rawhide. I'm quite happy to see Joe have start working on ZTS version (Even if reading about this, it seems a hard work, debian guys have given up, but it's really the Fedora main goal to be "bleeding edge", I think) Using a specific ini dir for zts extensions is mandatory. Do we should also use a specific ini dir for cli ? I think some extensions are really not needed in web mode (mainly ncurses). And this will solve the issue with php-gtk which can only be load in cli mode (the workaround is to not provide any .ini and to enable the extension in a launcher) Of course most extensions should then come with 2 .ini (or a link in both dir). Any comments ? Regards - -------- Message original -------- Sujet : Package: php-5.2.9-1.fc11 Tag: dist-f11 Status: complete Built by: remi Date : Sat, 28 Feb 2009 18:59:15 +0000 (UTC) ... Task Info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1209162 Build Info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=91887 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Remi - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkmqO5kACgkQYUppBSnxahiADgCg9e9k6aSkh9Udus1AyY81ztR2 DY0An0stNWeWBwsOxzbQnXDrCLuo4wJ3 =BfNe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jorton at redhat.com Wed Mar 4 14:21:33 2009 From: jorton at redhat.com (Joe Orton) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 14:21:33 +0000 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] 5.2.9, ZTS etc In-Reply-To: <49AA3B99.60204@FamilleCollet.com> References: <49AA3B99.60204@FamilleCollet.com> Message-ID: <20090304142133.GA5168@redhat.com> On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 08:39:05AM +0100, Remi Collet wrote: > you probably noticed I've push 5.2.9 to rawhide. Thanks, Remi! > I'm quite happy to see Joe have start working on ZTS version (Even if > reading about this, it seems a hard work, debian guys have given up, but > it's really the Fedora main goal to be "bleeding edge", I think) > > Using a specific ini dir for zts extensions is mandatory. Thanks for bringing this up. I'm not sure whether it's a good idea to support a ZTS httpd SAPI build, but I thought it's worth experimenting. My initial thought was that given upstream's antipathy towards ZTS, we should not attempt to support loadable extensions at all, since we don't expect that upstream (PHP, or third-party) will support random extensions in ZTS builds. (as-is, the zts build should be using only ini files from /etc/php-zts.d but I haven't played with it at all since getting a build done) > Do we should also use a specific ini dir for cli ? > > I think some extensions are really not needed in web mode (mainly > ncurses). And this will solve the issue with php-gtk which can only be > load in cli mode (the workaround is to not provide any .ini and to > enable the extension in a launcher) > > Of course most extensions should then come with 2 .ini (or a link in > both dir). Yeah, a separate php.d for the cli has been suggested before, I think. I think the ideal would be to have all SAPI builds pick up everything from /etc/php.d, and then have /etc/php-cli.d for additional extensions which will be also picked up by the CLI SAPI. That doesn't look possible without code changes, though. Otherwise, using /etc/php-cli.d/ with copies or symlinks of all the .ini files sounds feasiable but a bit of a pain. Actually it looks like the inidir code in PHP would ignore symlinks, though I haven't tested that. Regards, Joe From Fedora at FamilleCollet.com Sat Mar 28 08:12:15 2009 From: Fedora at FamilleCollet.com (Remi Collet) Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 09:12:15 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] First work on PEAR 1.8.0 Message-ID: <49CDDBDF.6050202@FamilleCollet.com> Hi I've just build a first RPM of php-pear-1.8.0 using RC1 tarball http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/php-pear-1.8.0-0.1.RC1.fc10.remi.src.rpm http://rpms.famillecollet.com/test-fc10.i386/php-pear-1.8.0-0.1.RC1.fc10.remi.noarch.rpm Changed - PEAR 1.8.0RC1 - Archive_Tar 1.3.3 - www_dir set to /var/www/html (so, pear must own it) - install-pear.php revision 1.37 Not changed - doc still in /usr/share/pear/doc - registry still in /usr/share/pear Of course feedbacks are welcome. Remi.