Re: php extensions compile error - another compile bug?

• Previous message: Gregory Nou: "Re: doom 3"
• In reply to: Kevin Kinsey: "Re: php extensions compile error - another compile bug?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 15:18:16 -0700

On Sunday 11 September 2005 14:02, the author Kevin Kinsey contributed to the
dialogue on-
 Re: php extensions compile error - another compile bug?:

>Vizion wrote:
>>Seeing as I am in the process of trying to build a resource to help victims
>> of the Katrina disaster your tone of correspondence, and speed of
>> engagement, has the unfortunate effect of reminding me about FEMA.
>>
>>There are two bugs in the makefile and one other issue that causes
>> problems, so it is not surprising that some degree of traffic was
>> generated.
>
>The first statement appears to be an attempt to rationalize your flurry
>of recent posts on
>a relatively trival subject, which at the last instance seems to be
>pretty much solved.

I think ou may be responding with some degree of misinformation.

You are probably right that the bugs may be trivial to some and easy to fix
for those that know how to fix them. I had mentioned why I needed bug 1
fixing and to find a fix for the --disable-all "bug/feature" in one of the
posts so please do not accuse me of a post hoc "rationalization". Initially I
just made an enquiry about --disable-all early on but did not realize its
significance until much later.

On the one hand I got castigated because someone, incorrectly, believed I had
not posted the info to the maintainer in accordance with the maintainer's
instructions. After it was posted to the list I was grateful for the help
received nwhich fixed bug 1.

On the other I got castigated by someone else in a private email because I had
not posted full information to freesd questions.

No matter what you do there are some people more inclined to complain about
the darkness rather than light a candle!

What may be trivial to one user might be important to another. I did not know
that one had to ask people in advance whether a bug was in their opinion,
trivial before discussion.

Is not triviality is a matter of perspective? If it is anounced that the ferry
is not working may that fact be a trivial issue to those who are where they
want to be but far from trivial to those who need to cross and have no
alternative method?

>
>The second is opinon at the very least and quite possibly pure tripe.

I do not find derogatory labelling very persuasive.
>The ports system
>works fine for me, on at least 4 different machines, as I noted in an
>email to you,
>personally, early on the morning of the 10th.

I agree it does work fine for me too on 99.9% of occasions. However do you not
agree that the odd 0.1% deserve fixing? Are you saying there is nothing that
needs fixing?
>
>I doubt seriously that I am alone in that.

I would be one who would join you in that.
>
>I furthermore wonder how one can decide that a couple of issues with
>oudated
>libraries constitutes a critical bug, and therefore requires that the
>port maintainer
>be cc'ed for every post you make to the list for the next two days.

Well if the maintainer did not wish to be cc'd s/he could tell me. Remember
more cc's were sent to ale from others than from me.

>It was not difficult at all to find the issues with libmagic
>discussed in several threads by utilizing Google. WDDX accounts for a
>miniscule amount of PHP's functionality.
Agreed - my solution was to drop bug 2 while reporting it.
>The changes to the way the PHP port works were made *last summer*, and
>discussed in /usr/ports/UPDATING, which
> you are supposed to read when you install new or update previously installed
> ports.

This is the only thing in /usr/ports/updating which I read it says:
AFFECTS: users of PHP
  AUTHOR: ale@FreeBSD.org

  The old lang/php4 and lang/php5 ports have been split into 'base' PHP,
  PEAR, and shared extensions to allow more flexibility and add new features.
  Upgrading your current PHP installation will result in a 'base' PHP
  installation (no PEAR and no extensions).
  PEAR can be found in the new devel/php4-pear and devel/php5-pear ports,
while
  the set of PHP extensions to install can be chosen via the meta-ports
  lang/php4-extensions and lang/php5-extensions, or installing singular
  extensions individually.
  If you have a previous php.ini configuration file, be sure to comment out
  the extension_dir parameter, since the correct path is statically compiled
  into the PHP binary.
  For an overview of the modules used with the old PHP binary, use
  the command "php -m".

Nowhere is there any mention of the implications of --disable-all on php
scripts that read the output of phpinfo and when the build has --disable-all
the script determines that php has not been built with sufficient support for
the application. That may be bad programming, there may be better ways to
test for that functionality, but it is a fact of life. A simple note about
the implications of the build process and how to ensure that --disable-all
is not reported was not included in the distribution.
> Do yourself a favor: update your system, read UPDATING,
Which I did and was not helpful.
It come down again to lighting candles in the darkness!

> use Google,

Do you actually know a google search which would have identified that issue
the --disable-all as being the cause of the symptoms I was experiencing and
show a remedy? - Believe me I tried for a long long time but maybe you will
be better placed to construct one now I have found the cause!

Why the constant fall back onto google? Surely we should not use the
existence of google as an excuse for having sufficient port documentation. I
agree it is an additional and valuable resource that needs to be well used.
But it does not necessarily come up with the answer as to why something is
going wrong!

 
> > and chill?? ;-)

My comment is that I have found 99% of the people on this forum t be
thoroughly thoughtful and considerate for 99% of the time.Many give much of
their valuable time to help others and I try and reciprocate that whenever I
get the chance. I make a point of thanking those who help and inviting the
opinion of others before drawing a conclusion..

Hence my comment to ale in regard to the --disable-all "bug/feature" from
which I have received no informed response beyong your assertion that is
"opinon at the very least and quite possibly pure tripe":

""I would be interested in what others have to say and would like to place on
record my appreciation for all your work in maintaining the ports."

At least I took a position of inquiry rather than risking ill-informed
judgement.

Ok so let me conclude by saying I do not want this to become a flame but
rather a free and honest exchange of differing positions. You have helped me
in the past and I am appreciative of that.

david

-- 
40 yrs navigating and computing in blue waters.
English Owner & Captain of British Registered 60' bluewater Ketch S/V Taurus.
 Currently in San Diego, CA. Sailing bound for Europe via Panama Canal after 
completing engineroom refit.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

• Previous message: Gregory Nou: "Re: doom 3"
• In reply to: Kevin Kinsey: "Re: php extensions compile error - another compile bug?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]