Re: [INTERNALS-WIN] [PATCH] Static dependency errors

hi,

On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Steph Fox <[email protected]> wrote:

> ps (off-list) Did you actually try it?

Please post all replies to the list.

I read it and it does partially why I'm working on. The only reason
why I did not commit is the recent decisions and updates. We have soon
a deadlines and many dependencies and builds have to be tested and
validated before.


On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Steph Fox <[email protected]> wrote:

>> As part of online discussion and IRC, we already define this behavior.
>> It was also discussion to have different levels of configure errors
>> (warning, fatal, etc.). The idea is also to display only the relevant
>> information and it is what the summary begin to do (while leaving the
>> possibility to have a verbose and noisy output as now).
>
> Not being party to this discussion, I'm not entirely sure what you mean
> here.

It will be committed early next week (certainly Monday evening or
Tuesday evening).  You can then play with it. However the idea is to
have a clear list of everything relevant happening during a configure
call:

- Error(s), fatal or warnings like dep or header not found for which ext
- Requested feature can't be enabled
- List of enabled features (ext, sapi, etc.), partially done already and in cvs
- QA validation check for release process

> That's precisely why a patch and not a commit, although I have to say Rob
> didn't specifically say that other work being done in this area.

I'm sorry for that. But I can't do much about that either.

>> goodness, you can now build php without having any library available
>> but resolv.lib (and this one will be dropped soon as well).
>
> You can do that with my patch, too.

You can do that right now already.

>> About the difficulty to write config.32, I can't agree. It is very
>> easy to write a config.w32 file for Windows, even with our recent
>> changes (which are only about checking that a given requirement is
>> full filled).
>
> Those changes in local configuration files actually cause dependency logic
> to be avoided.

They are logic, it has been discussed (by you) since my very commit
about such change. Can we move on please?

>> I'm sorry but I'm not in favor of applying this patch as it covers
>> something that is covered by the upcoming error level and logging
>> option. Please don't commit it.
>
> Could you point me to some discussion of this upcoming error level and
> logging option?

See the list archives (it is not that big) and the IRC logs if there
is any (no idea here).

--
Pierre

http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org