Everything

php

Re: Re: [PHP-CVS] cvs: php-src /win32 time.c

php.internals

Frank M. Kromann

22 years ago

Hi,

It is my understanding that most of the Win95 users are developing on the
win platform and deploying on a server (Win or Linux). I have no idea of
how meny users we have on Win95, but I have no problem in removing support
for it in PHP5. Lets move on :-)

- Frank

> I'm not sure if we should whole-heartedly abandon win95; I'd love to,
> I'm just not sure.  CGI/FastCGI sapi will only run under NT and later
> (because of the named pipe stuff).  For the people running PHP in a
> web server, this shouldn't be a problem (who would be mad enough to
> run '95 as a server anyway? ;-)
>
> I think the question is how many people use php under 95? (for gtk?)
> Do we *need* to support win95 in PHP 5?
>
> My preference is to say good riddance to it, as doing so allows us
> to implement these missing features and catch up with the unix version.
>
> --Wez.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andi Gutmans" <andi@zend.com>
> To: "Wez Furlong" <wez@php.net>
> Cc: <internals@lists.php.net>
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 8:23 PM
> Subject: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-CVS] cvs: php-src /win32 time.c
>
>
> > Does this mean I can enable my GetLongPathName() patch in
> > tsrm_virtual_cwd.c (I think it also requires Win98 but I kept it out
> > because there are people who are still using Windows 95). I think we
> > decided that we will continue supporting Windows 95 and I #If 0'd my
> patch.
> > Also, I just saw (and fixed the indentation) of some realpath()
> > implementation in tsrm_win32.c. Any reason for me not to nuke it? I

think

> > my code is better or is it being used throughout PHP? If so, we

should

Andi Gutmans

22 years ago

At 01:42 PM 12/1/2003 -0800, Frank M. Kromann wrote:

>Hi,
>
>It is my understanding that most of the Win95 users are developing on the
>win platform and deploying on a server (Win or Linux). I have no idea of
>how meny users we have on Win95, but I have no problem in removing support
>for it in PHP5. Lets move on :-)

Yeah, I think it's OK for us to dump Win95.
Whoever doesn't want to upgrade due to MS expensive upgrade policy should
be going for Linux anyway :)

Andi

Steph

22 years ago

Can anyone explain to me why we're not dumping support for win98 at the same
time pls?

(Given that the PHP5 build system doesn't work on win98 any more.. )

Wez Furlong

22 years ago

Because win98 supports the functions we want to use (while win95 does not).
And the build system has nothing to do with the runtime support :)

--Wez.

> Can anyone explain to me why we're not dumping support for win98 at the

same

Steph

22 years ago

> Because win98 supports the functions we want to use (while win95
> does not).
> And the build system has nothing to do with the runtime support :)

Agreed, but sooner or later it will..  Andi, why (specifically) did Zend
drop win98 support?

The PHP5 build system doesn't work because batch files created for w2k and
friends don't work on dos.. that's the _only_ reason currently, it's still
possible to build on win98 so long as you run a bunch of stuff from the
commandline first.

Andi Gutmans

22 years ago

At 11:42 PM 12/1/2003 +0000, Steph wrote:

> > Because win98 supports the functions we want to use (while win95
> > does not).
> > And the build system has nothing to do with the runtime support :)
>
>Agreed, but sooner or later it will..  Andi, why (specifically) did Zend
>drop win98 support?

We haven't dropped Win98 support for all products. There are some technical
reasons we aren't supporting Windows 98 officially for the Studio only but
they might be resolved at some stage.

>The PHP5 build system doesn't work because batch files created for w2k and
>friends don't work on dos.. that's the _only_ reason currently, it's still
>possible to build on win98 so long as you run a bunch of stuff from the
>commandline first.

Most Windows users don't build PHP by themselves so it doesn't matter.

Andi

Andi Gutmans

22 years ago

I think there are quite a few Win98 users and I see no reason to dump it,
especially as it supports the system calls we need.

At 11:34 PM 12/1/2003 +0000, Steph wrote: