Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:114774 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 61222 invoked from network); 7 Jun 2021 21:27:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 7 Jun 2021 21:27:57 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C709D1804C9 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 14:42:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 14:42:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1623102150; bh=cXiRF9bLRnAzf/bHj1z1xaucdPeVnLacx15YPnl2i9U=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=kndO3IsokDzEWIseRDEoAM1q6ANbXEPjbfeCrCG3Z0UYOtgYRrUHNxn63vLWexw0V M3vM1Pfg3yyabi9IFGINQdjOVh0ix+u70xV0yrYGIF25/Z0tabFFJFTISJalVYCzU3 88XL5EKZptLziNhSdGvhhT/Rm3FR/90fSjRvEWvE= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Received: from [192.168.2.130] ([84.179.237.12]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx005 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MDywo-1lgVes2Uui-009uE3; Mon, 07 Jun 2021 23:42:30 +0200 To: Anatol Belski , Nikita Popov Cc: PHP internals References: <581375a1-e18c-c88f-3bc4-557420ea15a3@gmx.de> <9bc4fef7-d144-5623-da96-75516d28c163@gmx.de> Message-ID: <31f6ba8d-5111-0948-40fe-943ade6f641c@gmx.de> Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 23:42:28 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: de-DE Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:RQ8zRaUrH8IKHYwtvwYgh5LFBCq9mrBKN7I5NbJy0z3EAd6vjqS 01j3704P+QhcxRCwUDoLbmwpXbjRnIkE0nh8Nk/2y8fS3k4JWrvb3QScEu5rqZtg28/XEfV cvJMFz0i8Up/iIH8ww2ReCUisBFK6TU++5WscHBqRlUlmMV8XLPQD3B3iroNLZukd8G51p7 4nbqLv6CgK27frKCVVM/w== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:2q9L341hpL0=:Rm5rDQUsZ7QQCllIyEN4V+ CynMG7udUrAx1nkzs/KruNsR7QF6r7Wt0A5gWfniW01EHhwWCuNNi5e9pFiXMQYaq3218OmKw XJRDc6YZXDkB4vwcbDwKVxbQ/ltz+98Q0JhKd04rYLcGnr54a4uIrJ/0lue1M7FybdHPf01W6 mK5+EG36coH2HATkYc7r2ROzgYLUU7//MGx6YvUmZbSq4f9Zzrl+s3ePaT9HI0OwDi0NpXAui 2/5St4g5H2dgZ52K9HjD9kZfCNdAETTY/YCiaBSApVRL1hCB3oQ+pVQkNxZfWyJ5gB27Bjfdh vW/kU7T4FTep4E6my/HbF08Sq5mpTrMQv6RPp1I88NMklN0qK663m/gS0wd85buoEs/pJ6jW+ F6gklxL3aX1imH5eDbWhFbsi2xMcD6hDrUH2QfNdDZoqPuv00QbM1QsI2UKGyr98FsaDDYXrZ qsRqIdlhDJJ1GLjJmHGJvL8UUdtY3eVLttjbJLH2Z089GwZxGb4QM97xeJU1YZ9p0BdNco+Li uTi38m/piXhCu7PK1YhRMQqUhW23ov4o091MOverAh5bo/hTKulS3rHOHHI6XTttar0hc/vA0 kywbDOh677wqhFwbPcX+EChm5ZMtxQv7virwS0WfbhBq4R4x4PEABUQEWWcsTLrr8oeK597rB QXL0dnXjYlF5yHzlTPNQvJY1oeeF6tfw8H2M2cBF73V/tMXpZXS7PrOhNlPuslOE3bb/KVlDC 6Y4QLlTHaxxYMSWnu4GhqSiGRr+M3fZe/PiggpM1BWhc/tcdoOxUxLqFMxwjXU65z3wAEVOBc bUlgVufEwzM7o/yQR81iXCJwXdaVST0DlkN/V7R/MmYwXvdPtWqIVnlw5NKwcTtYouviatzmX A4WsIXMan1Sb1Br/c74sEsROEWiwnECsrZhBWy3h6X8axsW3uFksbxA5Osk7dbMEeqbZpdL9R wQLUsxCE8PjL4Ol7SNi3EiAnBU3Ntk7FhgepKxdyz3VGvk0VAVIXJl5Mmhxdwbx9co0Im8Wcb wEVo2ILAMdkMBebNCTEkz2lr+Zv7ogLORrUPCPlWwmlfljhkutLMZGEsgGZlIpO2KpZdG7OsV no4PAwufyakteZ+sCh4xTMmiayYYxICEvKh Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 8.1 and PECL ext builds for Windows From: cmbecker69@gmx.de ("Christoph M. Becker") On 07.06.2021 at 13:32, Anatol Belski wrote: > Removing the centralized PECL builder and dependency manager would most = likely lead to a huge regression in the support and manageability. Right n= ow there's one place pecl.php.net to go for the non core extension builds = and any dependencies are guaranteed to be non conflicting. If this gets de= centralized, the effort is moved to the extension maintainers which will m= ost likely mean the chaos in where to get a DLL, DLL hell issues, absent D= LL because the configuration is hard. This will steadily lead to the situa= tion that was there before. > > IMO even keeping the basic version of the centralized approach even havi= ng a sporadic chance to fix issues is a far better way to go than dropping= the existing achievements. Also in the long run, other approaches like mo= ving to vcpkg for deps, checking on other things like cmake and pickle mig= ht be a good way, if there's a community interest. More volunteers on the= community side would be great in this sense, too. Good points, thank you for bringing them up! I have to fully agree that we should not drop the central point of distribution (i.e. windows.php.net). I don't think, however, that we can stick with the current PECL build system for long. Maybe the biggest issue is that extension maintainers may see automatic DLL builds as a given, or at least may not be able to fix things, because only few have access to the build machine. And even if that was not an issue, not many more would know where to look at. In other words, the bus factor is very low, and it may happen at some point in time, that no new DLLs would be built for *any* extension. This is why I still think it would be good to shift some of the burden of maintaining Windows builds to extension maintainers is a good thing. It is not about making their job harder, but rather about preventing serious issues, and also to correct expectations; extension maintainers might well assume that their extension is supported on common Linux distros, but they shouldn't *assume* it is supported on Windows as well (let alone that the dependency libraries have fixes for all known relevant security issues). Even if extensions are developed solely on Linux (and most are, as far as I know), they should have some Windows CI (at least doing the actual builds; better to run the test suite as well, of course), and that shouldn't be a real problem =E2=80=93 there are several CI providers which= are free for OSS projects. We should do our best to provide them with appropriate tools, so Windows CI integration can be set up as easily as for Linux phpize builds. That would not solve the issues regarding dependencies, but appears to be a reasonable first step in the right direction. Thanks, Christoph