Re: [INTERNALS-WIN] [PATCH] Static dependency errors

hi, On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Steph Fox <steph@php.net> wrote: > ps (off-list) Did you actually try it? Please post all replies to the list. I read it and it does partially why I'm working on. The only reason why I did not commit is the recent decisions and updates. We have soon a deadlines and many dependencies and builds have to be tested and validated before. On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Steph Fox <steph@php.net> wrote: >> As part of online discussion and IRC, we already define this behavior. >> It was also discussion to have different levels of configure errors >> (warning, fatal, etc.). The idea is also to display only the relevant >> information and it is what the summary begin to do (while leaving the >> possibility to have a verbose and noisy output as now). > > Not being party to this discussion, I'm not entirely sure what you mean > here. It will be committed early next week (certainly Monday evening or Tuesday evening). You can then play with it. However the idea is to have a clear list of everything relevant happening during a configure call: - Error(s), fatal or warnings like dep or header not found for which ext - Requested feature can't be enabled - List of enabled features (ext, sapi, etc.), partially done already and in cvs - QA validation check for release process > That's precisely why a patch and not a commit, although I have to say Rob > didn't specifically say that other work being done in this area. I'm sorry for that. But I can't do much about that either. >> goodness, you can now build php without having any library available >> but resolv.lib (and this one will be dropped soon as well). > > You can do that with my patch, too. You can do that right now already. >> About the difficulty to write config.32, I can't agree. It is very >> easy to write a config.w32 file for Windows, even with our recent >> changes (which are only about checking that a given requirement is >> full filled). > > Those changes in local configuration files actually cause dependency logic > to be avoided. They are logic, it has been discussed (by you) since my very commit about such change. Can we move on please? >> I'm sorry but I'm not in favor of applying this patch as it covers >> something that is covered by the upcoming error level and logging >> option. Please don't commit it. > > Could you point me to some discussion of this upcoming error level and > logging option? See the list archives (it is not that big) and the IRC logs if there is any (no idea here). -- Pierre http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org