Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:27293 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 61020 invoked by uid 1010); 6 Jan 2007 04:58:53 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 61005 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2007 04:58:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 6 Jan 2007 04:58:53 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=wrowe@rowe-clan.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=wrowe@rowe-clan.net; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain rowe-clan.net from 207.155.252.14 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: wrowe@rowe-clan.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 207.155.252.14 wellington.concentric.net Solaris 10 (beta) Received: from [207.155.252.14] ([207.155.252.14:41243] helo=wellington.cnchost.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id D8/79-01582-C8C2F954 for ; Fri, 05 Jan 2007 23:58:53 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.21] (c-24-15-193-17.hsd1.il.comcast.net [24.15.193.17]) (as wrowe@rowe-clan.net) by wellington.cnchost.com (ConcentricHost(2.54) Relay) with ESMTP id D6C628C53; Fri, 5 Jan 2007 23:58:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <459F2C79.3010204@rowe-clan.net> Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 22:58:33 -0600 User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20061107) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ilia Alshanetsky CC: Edin Kadribasic , PHP Internals List References: <459F1C08.7040300@krug.dk> <618CF1AA-CBDB-4863-9EFF-7A766D23819C@prohost.org> In-Reply-To: <618CF1AA-CBDB-4863-9EFF-7A766D23819C@prohost.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Windows build From: wrowe@rowe-clan.net ("William A. Rowe, Jr.") This sounds like a sane approach. My own 2c is that your failure to load represents a failure to correctly package the .manifest data of the individual modules; perhaps this is due to the individual modules requiring an entry for php5ts.dll? Without digging deeper, it is probably most sane to ship vc 6 (or vc 7.1) binaries for now. But I'd strongly encourage research into vc 8, not for binary distribution, but because the MS Visual Studio 2005 Express Edition (available free) is your end users' most approachable platform for exploring and compiling the sources, without the cost of other VC compilers and without the stress of fighting with the hassles of the other open compiler alternatives. Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: > 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