Re: [INTERNALS-WIN] [PATCH] Static dependency errors
[email protected] ("Steph Fox")
| Newsgroups | php.internals.win |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <004e01c8e9e4$0b5dc890$a7bd614d@foxbox> |
Hi, >> ps (off-list) Did you actually try it? > > Please post all replies to the list. Just trying to avoid embarrassing you. So that'll be a 'no' then. > 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. Surely that's a good reason to commit now, so everyone can test? > 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 You're talking entirely about the summary here I take it? In this case yes, I definitely do need to wait for your commit before submitting a patch for this. >>> 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. Yes but the whole point is to kill complexity further down the line. Yours works, but it works in a way that means others (e.g. across PECL) have to rewrite their own. Mine works in a way that negates the need for that. > They are logic, it has been discussed (by you) since my very commit > about such change. Can we move on please? There are actually good reasons for my objection, Pierre. I'm not saying it just to upset you. >> 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). What was all that about not discussing things off-list again? ;) - Steph