Re: [INTERNALS-WIN] Re: ext/odbc no longer builds under VC6

Posting an irc exchange between myself and Pierre.

If anyone knows of any conflict between the .NET 2.0 SDK (2005) and the MS 
Platform SDK (2003), please step up. It's difficult to prove either way, 
probably because most of those building under VC 6 already have VC 8 and/or 
VC 9 installed. We didn't come to a firm conclusion.

[13:47] <otherbird> Pierre: quick note - the .net SDK installation has MDAC 
2.8 on its requirements list, and the SDK installation contains MDAC 2.7. 
I've installed the .net SDK as advised, but not enabled it in builds because 
the header files I already have from Edin's collection are dated 2003 and 
work.
[13:47] <Pierre> well...
[13:47] <otherbird> I'll add to that: the .net SDK dates from 2005 and also 
installs a chunk of VC 8
[13:47] <otherbird> which it possibly relies on
[13:47] <Pierre> not willing to nitpick but...
[13:48] <otherbird> look, I'm just telling you there's a potential clash 
there
[13:48] <otherbird> don't want an argument :)
[13:48] <Pierre> neither me, the clash is if one uses something else that 
what we recommend :)
[13:49] <Pierre> especially for a dying thing like VC6 support
[13:49] <otherbird> no, the clash is between the .net SDK from 2005 (which 
you recommend) and the 2003 SDK (which you recommend)
[13:49] <otherbird> the files that _don't_ clash with the 2003 SDK are among 
Edin's headers
[13:49] <Pierre> I never ever recommend the 2005 SDK.
[13:49] <Pierre> for VC6
[13:50] <otherbird> that's what you get if you download the .net SDK, and 
yeah it's under the recommendations for vc6 on the wiki
[13:50] <Pierre> we support two for the releases: 2003/02 (vc6) and PSDK 6.1 
(vc9)
[13:50] <otherbird> is that a typo?
[13:50] <otherbird> I think the wiki's wrong then, it says .net sdk under 
vc6
[13:51] <Pierre> hm
[13:51] <Pierre> not sure when it was added or changed
[13:51] <otherbird> the com_dotnet tests all pass without that sdk install
[13:51] <Pierre> let me correct it, or make it less confusing
[13:52] <otherbird> (using Edin's headers + 2003 SDK)
[13:52] <otherbird> - not that there are many com_dotnet tests...
[13:53] <Pierre> edin's headers are a big mess, not willing to even try to 
figure out what was used there.
[13:54] <otherbird> explicitly, mscoree.h
[13:55] <otherbird> I don't know where he'd have got that from, but there's 
a later version shipped with the 2005 .net sdk
[13:55] <otherbird> his is dated Feb 2003, I think his .net sdk update 
must've matched the 2003 sdk
[13:56] <otherbird> all the includes are in the 2003 sdk
[13:56] <otherbird> (and also the VC6 original)
[13:58] <Pierre> but I'll unlikely try anything new for VC6 as it works now 
and is reproduceable using MS SDKs without changes
[13:58] <Pierre> let move to VC9 instead to get things fixed and better
[14:00] <otherbird> Pierre: I know you want to move to VC9 yesterday, but be 
realistic - until Apache do, we can't.
[14:01] <Pierre> otherbird: ...
[14:01] <otherbird> Pierre: 5.3 was supposed to be a testing ground for it, 
originally
[14:01] <Pierre> otherbird: we don't move completely with 5.3 for this exact 
reason. It was decided to do the double builds because of our discussions 
with apache
[14:01] <otherbird> it was supposed to be on QA for testing
[14:01] <otherbird> originally
[14:02] <otherbird> Pierre: I'm aware of that
[14:02] <Pierre> and 5.3 is in testing/development phase
[14:02] <otherbird> yes
[14:03] <otherbird> anyway this-all is beside the point - a minute ago you 
said the 2005 stuff wasn't recommended for vc6, what are you saying now? 
That it is?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steph Fox" <[email protected]>
To: "Pierre Joye" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Elizabeth M Smith" <[email protected]>; 
<[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: [INTERNALS-WIN] Re: ext/odbc no longer builds under VC6


> Hi Pierre, Elizabeth,
>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/msdownload/platformsdk/sdkupdate/psdk-full.htm
>
> OK, I pushed that button (and made MSIE my default browser for the 
> duration because you have to, *grumble*). I now have an amazing cocktail 
> of goodies in C:\Program Files:
>
> - Microsoft Platform SDK (this is 2003 SP1)
> - Microsoft SDK (this is psdk-full)
> - Microsoft Visual Studio (this is VS6 && SP6)
> - Microsoft Visual Studio .NET (contains empty dirs)
> - Microsoft Visual Studio .NET 2003 (contains the same empty dirs)
> - Microsoft .NET (contains a single .dll and .xml file)
>
> Is this what you'd expect, give or take the SP1 dir and duplicated .NET 
> dirs?
>
> FWIW I have to admit you were right, Pierre - MDAC 2.7 is shipped with 
> this package, this must be about the only way you can still get hold of 
> it. It would be nice if on the wiki we could have a list of the packages 
> we actually need, since I appear to have ended up with a lot of stuff I 
> really don't need at all (and my hard drive's nearly full again as a 
> result). I suspect the problems with previous installs came from attempts 
> to avoid blindly installing all components.
>
> There's no difference between sqltypes.h dated Feb 2003 (in psdk-full) and 
> sqltypes.h dated April 2005 (in SP1). The only change I can find in sql or 
> odbc code is to do with paths in odbcss.h. There appear to be *major* 
> changes in other areas though, including f.e.ole/oleaut, so I need to know 
> now whether I should ditch SP1 or apply it?
>
> .NET is another massive installation and if it's possible to only install 
> what we need of it, I'd appreciate some guidance there. (Although it 
> should be said that com_dotnet does actually build without it anyway.)
>
> - Steph
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Windows Internals Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>