httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "wahoocrazy7@gmail.com" <wahoocra...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: PHP5.3.6
Date Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:40:38 GMT
Hey guys,
I'm sort of new to this list ( been reading the emails for a while now). At the moment I would
think it would be easiest to just add a note to the Apache Wikipedia page for the http server,
maybe in the developer or PHP section. 

Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone

----- Reply message -----
From: "Rich Bowen" <rbowen@rcbowen.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 18, 2011 10:24
Subject: PHP5.3.6
To: <dev@httpd.apache.org>

I wanted to be sure that folks are aware of what's going on in the Windows/PHP world. I know
that, in one sense, it's not our problem, but it *feels* like our problem to me, and to many
of our users.

PHP5.3.6 was just released, and the Windows binaries are built with VC9, meaning that it won't
work with our Windows binaries. I know that it's been discussed before, and there's a plan
to move to VC9, but as of last week, the official PHP build doesn't run with the official
Apache httpd build. The PHP website recommends that folks use the Apache Lounge build.

This sucks.

It sucks that our users have to jump through additional hoops. It sucks even more that there
wasn't (or at least, it appears to me that there wasn't) conversation between the two communities
prior to this happening. The folks in php-land are aware that it's a problem, but don't see
to really think that it's *their* problem. For our part, we seem to be unaware that anything
happened.

I don't know that the relationship between Apache httpd and php communities is anybody's *fault*,
but it's long struck me as a great shame that there isn't closer cooperation between the two
communities.

I'm not sure exactly what I'm suggesting we do about this. It would be nice if we could provide
binaries built with VC9, or if we could recommend on the download site that people get binaries
from ApacheLounge. I don't know if either of these is really an option. How would folks feel
about our download site encouraging folks to use ApacheLounge's version of 2.2? I suspect
that there'd be some resistance to this, based on our previous interactions with them.

I have a foot in the documentation team of both projects, so I tend to hear both sides of
the conversation at least from that perspective. I'd like for us to be more proactive about
strengthening the community bond between us and what is probably the most important third-party
Apache httpd module. There seems to be a pretty strong "they don't ever listen to us" attitude
on both sides, and I'm not sure that it's really warranted.

--
Rich Bowen
rbowen@rcbowen.com

Mime
View raw message