Hello Marc, On Sat, 04.02.2006 at 16:42:57 +0100, Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Toni Mueller wrote: > > Also, we need Typo3 (blech) which in turn requires PHP4, not PHP5. > > Compatibility with PHP5 is planned for 4.0, so turned around, 3.8.x > > isn't compatible with PHP5, and 4.0 beta isn't, either. > > iirc there is no typo3 port,
indeed, there isn't. It was also a bit of work getting it to run properly w/o resortung to -u. > so what are you trying to tell us? I'm trying to say that PHP4 still is required, which you seemed to dispute, and that ports should not be viewed as a closed shop but eg. are useful to lay ground for other apps which maybe didn't make it into ports yet, and that your argument that there is lang+1 for popular languages - that's what I understand from you wrt. PHP4 vs. PHP5, for instance, is invalid as long as important applications are not certified for that language version. > On the other hand we have software _in the tree_ that requires the > PHP5 stuff. it has been decided long time ago to go with PHP5 > wherever possible. Don't get me wrong - I'm in no way advocating throwing out PHP5, but I wish that different language versions could be installed in parallel, and then eg. be differentiated by search paths, instead of having to choose either one and discarding all others. This is impractical from my perspective. > php4 remains in the ports collection, though. Ok... While we are at it, what about PHP 4.4.2 which again claims to fix some security problems over 4.4.1? Best, --Toni++
