Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:27292 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 59080 invoked by uid 1010); 6 Jan 2007 04:45:02 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 59065 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2007 04:45:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 6 Jan 2007 04:45:02 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ilia@prohost.org; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ilia@prohost.org; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain prohost.org from 64.233.162.233 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ilia@prohost.org X-Host-Fingerprint: 64.233.162.233 nz-out-0506.google.com Linux 2.4/2.6 Received: from [64.233.162.233] ([64.233.162.233:36519] helo=nz-out-0506.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 0F/19-01582-D492F954 for ; Fri, 05 Jan 2007 23:45:01 -0500 Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id k1so3774763nzf for ; Fri, 05 Jan 2007 20:44:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.65.137.15 with SMTP id p15mr32700092qbn.1168058698921; Fri, 05 Jan 2007 20:44:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?192.168.1.6? ( [74.108.69.82]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id e14sm18955175qba.2007.01.05.20.44.58; Fri, 05 Jan 2007 20:44:58 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <459F1C08.7040300@krug.dk> References: <459F1C08.7040300@krug.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-ID: <618CF1AA-CBDB-4863-9EFF-7A766D23819C@prohost.org> Cc: PHP Internals List Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 23:44:55 -0500 To: Edin Kadribasic X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Windows build From: ilia@prohost.org (Ilia Alshanetsky) Edin, Thanks for the detailed analysis and spending time analyzing the issue. Based on what you've said I think our best option is to go back to VC++ 6.0 for this release, we are too far along in the release cycle to experiment with things. Perhaps for the next release we can revisit the issue, assuming there an interest and a benefit of using VC++ 8.0 can be quantified. On 5-Jan-07, at 10:48 PM, Edin Kadribasic wrote: > I looked around at other projects and everyone seems to be using VC++ > 6.0 for their builds (Active state, apache, ...) which eliminates all > the hassle with bundling C runtime, etc. > > So I think the best thing for us would be to stick to the good old C > compiler for making the Windows distro. Ilia Alshanetsky