Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:38519
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.198.229 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition
         :references;
        b=jhfkKVndeWu7NJWaS7CRd2qeoD9/q53GhgUcmmOd5TELlKLOLCg1gxUZHJceL7KYsi
         xJzJw/av5g/c64eqahqYG2y85NCcAl3O5+//ZNLICzw8Hf7uwaWiJF1LBd53Zd2l6JqU
         wpcwdAagZQqsFqs4oibQ9QYn8WbTSiNULB4TA=
Message-ID: <fe05d1540806221341o6ebd3c21v2506d92903778bbe@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 22:41:55 +0200
To: "Steph Fox" <steph@phparch.com>
Cc: "Greg Beaver" <greg@chiaraquartet.net>, 
	"Marcus Boerger" <mail@marcus-boerger.de>, 
	internals <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <028a01c8d4a7$18dd4380$4401a8c0@foxbox>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <028a01c8d4a7$18dd4380$4401a8c0@foxbox>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] OpenSSL and Phar
From: pierre.php@gmail.com ("Pierre Joye")

On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Steph Fox <steph@phparch.com> wrote:

> It seems we don't use the openssl extension API at all in ext/phar, just the
> actual OpenSSL headers and libs. That means Phar with OpenSSL support can be
> both built and run without ext/openssl being built at all, but requires
> third-party libs (under Windows at least - ssleay32.dll and libeay32.dll) in
> the same way that ext/openssl does.
>
> I'm wondering if we shouldn't have a separate configuration option for this
> - something like --enable-phar-ssl - rather than testing for --with-openssl
> in the config line.
>
> The chief advantage of this approach is that it doesn't matter whether
> phar-ssl is built as shared or not, since the dependency is outside PHP.
>
> Thoughts?

--with-openssl is used by ext/openssl and will continue to be used
like it is now (I'm thinking of adding --with-openssl-dir for
consistency but that's all).

I'm not sure it makes sense to have the ssl optional features enabled
but not ext/openssl. Or to say it better, I don't see the gain. What
is the gain besides being able to say: "heh you can use the ssl
features without having ext/openssl but you need the libs anyway"?

About the SSL ibraries on windows, they are always distributed as dll
in the PHP releases.

Cheers,
-- 
Pierre

http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org