httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Graham Dumpleton <>
Subject Re: PHP5.3.6
Date Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:19:28 GMT
On 18 March 2011 07:24, Rich Bowen <> wrote:
> 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
> 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.

If I read this right, this is a similar issue to what we have in the
Python world with some Python extension modules on Windows.

One discussion thread about it can be found at:

Scan down towards end of discussion for overview.

They have solved this problem in Python world by having the affected
package reinsert the missing VC runtime reference into the manifest
file used with the extension.

So, as far as I can see, PHP has a way of solving this themselves
without requiring a change in Apache.


View raw message