I'm skipping the nested inclusion method in replying to David for the
moment. I somehow think there is a disconnect which needs to be resolved
first.
From David's mail, I'm led to believe that only a small number of PHP
versions will be on the system. Initially, only PHP5, perhaps joined by
PHP4 (or 6) in the future. As I said in other mail, I suspect a
workable support plan can be worked for this model. (If this works out
to be the case, I would like to see a paragraph or two about it in the
materials rather than "like Perl". We need to write this down sometime
to avoid the "Ground Hog Day" effect.)
However, if this is that case, I don't understand the benefit or use of
the [version] directory level *under* PHP5:
2.3. Directory Naming and Structure
The proposed directory layout for PHP5 is:
/usr/php5/
bin -> [version]/bin
doc -> [version]/doc
....
/usr/php5/[version]/bin/php Uncommitted Executable location
/usr/php5/bin/php Uncommitted Symbolic link
/usr/bin/php Uncommitted Symbolic link
This seems only designed to allow support for multiple, co-resident
versions of PHP5.
The only way I can reconcile David's statement with this structure is
that Sun Solaris would only ever deliver one version of PHP5 and the
[version] field's only purpose is to give a structure to allow SA's to
download other versions directly from the community. The OpenSolaris
reference build would also be so resticted. Other OpenSolaris distros
could do what they want, but would be encouraged to do the same.
What is the model here?
>> I don't want to debate this too long in e-mail. The adding of these
>> multiple versioned
>> directories, which require a yet unspecified inclusion/support
>> policy, simply pushes
>> this out of the domain of a fast-track. We will be much more
>> efficient discussing this
>> in a meeting (or several).
>
> Does that mean that you're derailing this, Joe? I'd just like to know
> so we can begin to gather what questions need to be answered and then
> schedule a full review?
Not yet. It means that if we can't make significant progress in a day or
two via e-mail, *then* I will probably derail it. I'm just of the
opinion that for fast-tracks with higher level issues, we try to keep
them as fast-tracks for too long. Its just not efficient. We aren't
quite to that point yet (IMHO).
- jek3
