On Sun, 15 Dec 2002, Stig S. Bakken wrote: > > This will break the idea of having 'php' (the CLI) on as much systems as > > possible (for PEAR). It seems that integrating the two (CGI and CLI) > > _seems_ like the best solution, although I do not favor this due to > > technical reasons. > > For PEAR, it doesn't matter what the PHP binary name is, and since 1.0 > will be co-released with PHP 4.3, PEAR will follow whatever PHP does. > > I agree with Zeev's stand on this. We (php-dev) are a bit too ego-centric > if we think that it is reasonable to make lots of problems for existing > CGI users just because we have some stubborn notion of what the CLI binary > name should be. Ease up folks, and think about the users for a bit. > IMHO some people are just a bit too eager breaking stuff around here.
I see that renaming the CGI to php-cgi might break things indeed, and that's never a good idea. But so is changing the name of the CLI (php) to something else. It also breaks things, not only for me, but also for countless others using the CLI with the name 'php'. We also need to think about these users as well. This leaves my opinion that i'm -1 on renaming the CLI to something else, and i'm a -0 (yes this changed :) on renaming the CGI. This leaves the (IMO) only possible solution: integrate them back into one binary and adding some magic which triggers CLI or CGI mode (perhaps to check for some environment variable). Derick -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Derick Rethans http://derickrethans.nl/ PHP Magazine - PHP Magazine for Professionals http://php-mag.net/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
