Hi Sam, > -----Original Message----- > From: Sam Hobbs [mailto:Sam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 8:08 PM > To: Anatol Belski <anatol.php@xxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: Editing article: Build your own PHP on Windows > > Well it turns out that I don't have write access to the article; I thought I did. I > have more comments inline. > > > > Anatol Belski <mailto:anatol.php@xxxxxxxxxx> > Thursday, September 22, 2016 5:36 PM > Hi Sam, > > Thanks for the interest on building yourself. > > > Setup > Add a download link, as in: > Downloads | Visual Studio > https://www.visualstudio.com/downloads/download-visual- > studio-vs > > > The link might change with the next VS release. > > Perhaps, but there is nothing version-dependent in the URL. If it does change > then the reader of the article must search for it, the same as if the link is not > provided. > Please check this https://wiki.php.net/internals/windows/compiler which is linked from the step by step page in the requirements section. > > > > Command prompt > Add: "Start" | "Visual Studio 2015" | "Visual Studio Tools" | > "Windows > > Desktop > > Commands" > > > Not sure I'm able to find this path on my system. Usually you just start > typing like "vs2015 x64" and the start menu shows the correct links. The > correct shells are listed on the wiki already. Some also use vcvarsall.bat. > > Well, you are the one that will be answering questions if someone has problems, > not me, so your opinion and preferences are more important regardless of > whether I agree. I really, really do not like the way Windows 10 is designed such > that it we often must search for everything like that. > What I was telling is, that I couldn't find "Start" | "Visual Studio 2015" | ... you were referring to. Everyone has their own way to come to things, true. But what I said has nothing to do with my personal preference, I personally use neither cmd nor start menu :) However, the way with typing the command works on any system, while the start menu shortcuts structure can differ. > Download prerequisites > Be sure to click on the "Download source code" link. The file > name will be > > in the > > format php-{version}-src.zip. If it does not have the suffix "-src" > then > > it is not a > > source code file. > > > The wiki says "download a source archive", the name or the link itself > might > change. > > This is the issue I think needs improvement the most. It is very easy to get > confused. The article is too vague. It wasted much of my time. It really needs to > be clarified somehow. If there is a discrepancy then something should be fixed. > And yes, things change; that is inevitable. Articles can quickly be changed > technically but the social hurdles (as in no one agreeing) are often the problem. > The article contains all the necessary information to build PHP in one unambiguous way. OFC it is not the first time someone asks questions, but it's really really first time in my memory where it's not obvious that a zipball with binaries doesn't contain the source code. What is the discrepancy you're talking about? > c:\php-sdk can be on a different drive and "php-sdk" can be a > > sub-directory. > > > This is not correct. Currently the paths are hardcoded at many places, so > moving around should happen. > > I searched the source code files and related files for "php-sdk". I found "d:/php- > sdk" in the following files: > > > C:\php-sdk\script\conf_tools.bat > C:\php-sdk\bin\snapshot_trunk_all.bat > C:\php-sdk\bin\snapshot_6_0_vc9.bat > C:\php-sdk\bin\snapshot_6_0.bat > C:\php-sdk\bin\snapshot_5_3_vc9x64.bat > C:\php-sdk\bin\snapshot_5_3_vc9.bat > C:\php-sdk\bin\snapshot_5_3_all.bat > C:\php-sdk\bin\snapshot_5_2.bat > > I don't know if the hard-coded path should be in those files but at least it > indicates that someone maintaining the source code is using a different drive > letter. Also, "C:\php-sdk\bin\patch.bat" has the path > "c:\Users\pierre\Documents\php-sdk\bin\patch.exe" so whoever Pierre is, he > seems to have the source code and such in a sub-directory. > Most of these are dead files, they should be removed with the next bin tools release. As you've probably realized, the binary sdk is somewhat old. We probably need to work towards a new release. > I'd suggest you to work a bit more with the various build > variants first, > before running for wiki edits. Maybe also work more with VS > itself and > compilation on Windows, as that's not the part to be explained > in that wiki > page. The most of the intended edits look misleading to me > right now. > > Note that I was trying to do as requested in: > > php.windows: Re: PHP source code directory name > http://news.php.net/php.windows/31407 > > > Where Jeff McKenna said "Bonus points for actually editing that wiki page". I > would not have tried to do that otherwise. I am trying to help. > And it is very much appreciated. Thanks for your time! As for me, the edits look unrewarding, though. > I am not sure what "also work more with VS itself and compilation on Windows" > means, whether you are referring to compiling PHP or referring to VS generally. I > have been working with VS for as long as you have, probably longer. I have even > used Microsoft's DOS version of IDE before version 1 of VS. > As it sounded for me based on your questions, it could be a right choice to spend some more time with building PHP classic way before starting to write about it. IMHO a discussion about how to click links in the article or starting VS shell is a bit out of place. A certain level is simply expected from the reader. I saw, that you did quite some technical writing before. Likely your ideas would become more practically relevant if you'd face up to the actual building. We shouldn't put all possible tweaks into that page, as it will render unusable quite fast. > Editing articles can be easy but getting people to agree can often be impossible. If you want it philosophic way. On my side, I build not only PHP but many other OSS projects. In many projects authors predestinate the ways things should go. In most case it is IMO also the best way to step in someones traces, at least at the beginning. In other projects you feel left alone on the street. The way PHP build works was introduced years ago. But for any project at least I know - one still needs to hack themselves into things, no matter how good the documentation is. As for me, calling it "loss of time" is at least a bad wording. Nothing is made of stone. Improvements should be IMO in the spirit of the matter, like in any project. On PHP lists, things usually get discussed to amalgamate the best from the ideas. Regards Anatol -- PHP Windows Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
