Re: Binary pecl packages - general questions

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 17:22:27 +0200 (MEST) kettler@gmx.net ("Sascha Kettler") wrote: > Hi, > > I've prepared my crack extension for a binary release for > Windows, but I have some general questions open for discussion: > > What should the Windows binary package be called? Greg suggested > crack_dll, but I think crack_win32 would also be suitable. Is > there any style fixed yet? You mean the package itself? I think that crack-win32-1.0.0.tar.gz is fine (maybe we will have some win64 at some point...). > Next thing is whether it is ok to put the .dll files into CVS > aswell (I currently compile my extension for every > ZEND_MODULE_API_NO since 4.1.0)? I know CVS does not handle > binary files that well, but the individual .dll files will be > around 40k each. Please do not, keep a page somewhere with the various versions. I do not think we should provide binary for too many old php versions, and certainly not before 4.2.0. > It would probably be really great for the PEAR installer to be > able to install binary extensions not using a PHP version but a > ZEND_MODULE_API_NO. Currently this constant is not available > inside PHP, but it can be easily extracted from the phpinfo() > output. Also the DEBUG and ZTS flags would be great for > installconditions (maybe just use something like > 20020429-no-debug-zts as a match). Yes, this a real problem now, and some couple of things that need to be fixed (provide system dependencies checks, various API version supporst,..) It reminds me that I have to finish this binary support RFC. But for now, the priority #1 is to get 1.4.0 out. Binary package support will be our next big step (1.4.x or 1.5.0). Regards, --Pierre