Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:13454 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 56319 invoked by uid 1010); 22 Oct 2004 12:32:04 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 56294 invoked from network); 22 Oct 2004 12:32:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp11.intermedia.net) (64.78.21.10) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 22 Oct 2004 12:32:04 -0000 Received: from ehost011-1.exch011.intermedia.net ([64.78.21.3]) by smtp11.intermedia.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 22 Oct 2004 05:32:03 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 05:31:59 -0700 Message-ID: <41EE526EC2D3C74286415780D3BA9F870527C4A2@ehost011-1.exch011.intermedia.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [PHP-DEV] ./configure, PHP, SuSE and the AMD64 thread-index: AcSxtiZzgnwQ6bLrTpqxPDOeofLFwgGfIo+Q To: "Derick Rethans" Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Oct 2004 12:32:03.0827 (UTC) FILETIME=[22B3D430:01C4B833] Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] ./configure, PHP, SuSE and the AMD64 From: hans@nyphp.com ("Hans Zaunere") > > > > As I mentioned in my original post, --with-module and > > > > --with-module-dir seem to have some inconsistencies themselves as > > > > well. What is the behavior? > > > > > > Where are the inconsistencies, can you point those out? > > > > Here are some notes additions from my previous post. > > > > In fact, there appear to be some inconstancies, and certainly some > > questions: > > > > > --with-openssl (must not have any directory after it, > > > which isn't inline with what ./configure --help says). > > > > This just seems right-out broken... >=20 > OpenSSL is a special beast, though I can't see so quickly where the > message is generated. >=20 > > > --with-zlib=3D/usr (this works - but what if I want to > > > force the 64bit library version, in /usr/lib64?) > > > > This is seems to be related to this thread, specifically lib64. >=20 > Yes, so it's not an inconsistency ;-) >=20 > > > --with-bz2=3D/usr/lib64 (and this also works - which you > > > would think it shouldn't, compared to the zlib above?) > > > > Just confusion... perhaps on my part, or inconsistencies in the way > > ./configure works. >=20 > If it works it is because we fall back to the default dir after this, so > it would fallback to /usr/lib and /usr/include. >=20 > > > > > And lastly, take these: > > > > > > --with-curl=3D/usr/lib64 >=20 > See above. >=20 > > > --with-zlib-dir=3D/usr/lib64 > > > > > > Both seem to work (so far). So what is the difference > > > between a directive having the -dir suffix and not? > > > > Compare --with-zlib and --with-zlib-dir, per above. Things sometimes > > "work" (meaning there are no obvious errors) and sometimes not; so how > > should the two be used? What does the suffix -dir mean and how should > > it be used? >=20 > zlib-dir is odd indeed, it will override the dir from --with-zlib. No > clue why :) >=20 > > Agreed. ./configure should 1) have defaults of lib's locations 2) use > > system linker variables and most importantly 3) allow specific > > directories to be specified during ./configure time. >=20 > 1, sure, we do that. Not sure what you mean by 2) and 3) i don't agree For #2, per Robert Silva's post: "For #2, I believe he is referring to searching LD_LIBRARY_PATH directories for libraries rather than hardcoding /lib everywhere (which is how its done now)." > with as it is common to specify the install root dir which we've been > doing for ages. Supplying the install root is fine, but as we've seen, it's not always right and doesn't work. For a lib that's installed into /usr/lib64, what's the install root? > > > shot, but I'll need to have access to a linux running on 64bit first > > :) > > > > That's not a problem, see follow-up message. >=20 > It wasn't a problem, more people already offered an account while you > were sleeping ;-) Hehe, fair enough - let me know if you need another account (this has SuSE). How are things looking so far? Thanks Derick, H