On 1/21/08 2:33 PM, "Antony Dovgal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 22.01.2008 01:07, Lucas Nealan wrote: >> There is only one extension with config9.m4, the recode extension and it >> appears to be using this expressly outside of the context of phpize however >> it is not problematic to include this. The other four extensions only have a >> config0.m4. Do we prefer to create 4 new config.m4's and sinclude the >> config0.m4 from there? > > Well, technically it should not matter whether it's config9 or config0. > But there is a reason why those extensions use config0 - other > extension should know if they are enabled or not, i.e. their configure > checks must be run first. > > So I believe you're going to have problems if you build them dynamically.
Yeah, it seems that the rub is depending on the context building them dynamically might make sense, it all depends of if you want or need the dependant functionality to work. I'm not adamant about making these build dynamically, I can always get them to build however I want in our environment, however it could be useful to others in these contexts. One might need openssl to facilitate communication with a card processor like cybersource but not care about having it for streams etc. Could we make these work with a phpize warning about the consequences? If we don't make a change I could add some text about compiling these to the relevant documentation pages. -lucas -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
