Re: FreeBSD Port: php5-5.2.11_1 upgrade path to 5.3.0/1
Oliver Schonrock wrote: Hi Alex On Thursday 05 Nov 2009 15:39:20 Oliver Schonrock wrote: You are probably aware of the discussion here:http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=5132 Do you plan to create a php53 set of ports or just update the php5 set? How far have you got? Obviously since then we have had this announcement: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2009-December/058016.html Which sounded very promising! Has this stalled for some reason? can we help? There was another reply: "Patch updated. This should be the final patch. I'm going to commit it when PHP 5.3.2 will be released." http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2010-January/059021.html Miroslav Lachman ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD Port: php5-5.2.11_1 upgrade path to 5.3.0/1
Hi Alex On Thursday 05 Nov 2009 15:39:20 Oliver Schonrock wrote: > You are probably aware of the discussion > here:http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=5132 > > Do you plan to create a php53 set of ports or just update the php5 set? > > How far have you got? Obviously since then we have had this announcement: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2009-December/058016.html Which sounded very promising! Has this stalled for some reason? can we help? -- Oliver Schonrock ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD Port: php5-5.2.11_1 upgrade path to 5.3.0/1
Miroslav Lachman пишет: Seriously - if ports team is willing to have "legacy" versions in ports, we need to discuss some rules for this work. Not just for PHP, but more general. In which conditions we need/allow them, the naming conventions (some ports already have more versions but names are not consistent, some ports are using -dev, -devel, -current [3 different sufixes for the development branch], Perl always uses p5- prefix, Python have py25-, py26- etc.) So is it better to renumber the legacy (forked) version to php52-ext_name-5.2.12 leaving php5- line for 5.3 version or do it like Python (py25, py26): php52- and php53-. It's good idea. But, it may be very hard. I very small know about port system (but, I maintain two or three ports =)), but can small help - some test, or "hands" operations (rename, & etc) ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
FreeBSD Port: php5-5.2.11_1 upgrade path to 5.3.0/1
Hi Alex, >> So you don't plan to leave 5.2.x version in ports for people who need to >> maintain servers in production with many clients and many 'old' web >> applications? > > Like we don't have ports for php 5.0 and 5.1, I'll not maintain ports > for 5.2 when the switchover will take place. I don't think you can do that. 5.2 is a separate branch to 5.3 and still maintained. And for normal customers it's not such easy as you can read in "migration53.incompatible.php". In our own project (XAMPP), there are a lot questions from customers about how the replace the bundled PHP5.3 with PHP5.2. Just some points: - Many common webapps are not working with 5.3 at this time, e.g. Drupal6. - An other example may be Joomla. I know, 1.5.15 (core) should be compatible with PHP5.3, but that's not completely true. Especially not for Joomla add-ons. - And a lot of others have problems with 5.3. (and not all FreeBSD users are full time admins ;-) ) - there are extensions which are not working with PHP5.3 - there are extensions which are more exclusive in PHP5.3 (the PECL versions are not the same or unmaintained (e.g. sqlite3 / fileinfo)). On the other side we need PHP5.3, because if someone need the new functions, or is just an developer of an webapp. (if these have not gone in the meantime to another OS). And the ZendOptimizer is not a loss. We have APC or eAccelerator. So only the encryption function is left. But this is still working with 5.2. And of course, there is also no ZendOptimizer for PHP5.3 for any other OS (which is officially support from Zend). So I guess "some" have switched. Now the last questions: You still need tests with the PHP5.2 patch and feedback? Or something else? Regards, Carsten ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD Port: php5-5.2.11_1 upgrade path to 5.3.0/1
Doug Barton wrote: Miroslav Lachman wrote: Even if there are just a "few" incompatibilities, it means some clients applications on webhosting will stop working and clients will scream on helpline right after the update of the servers PHP... Sounds like you're familiar with the problems, why don't you volunteer to maintain the 5.2.x set of ports after a fork? Now both problems are solved. :) I expected this answer :) And my answer is - I can try it. PHP with all extensions is not the simplest way to start learning port maintaining, but I can try it. The question is - are there committers willing to commit it or is it something against some people opinion / against some rules? (changes in Mk/bsd.php.mk will be needed) And yes, I'm serious, assuming that there will be updates in the 5.2.x series that users will need. If not, simply not updating their existing ports is a reasonable solution. It can be useful even if there will be no more updates - in case somebody need to install new machine in to farm with older versions. [until there will be next security hole in PHP 5.2 :)] Seriously - if ports team is willing to have "legacy" versions in ports, we need to discuss some rules for this work. Not just for PHP, but more general. In which conditions we need/allow them, the naming conventions (some ports already have more versions but names are not consistent, some ports are using -dev, -devel, -current [3 different sufixes for the development branch], Perl always uses p5- prefix, Python have py25-, py26- etc.) So is it better to renumber the legacy (forked) version to php52-ext_name-5.2.12 leaving php5- line for 5.3 version or do it like Python (py25, py26): php52- and php53-. And wouldn't it be better to have for example PHP 5.3 in "devel" state in ports for some evaluation period - earlier before PHP 5.3 will be given as new 5.x main line so more people can test it even with limited features, web developers can write/test own apps for PHP 5.3 etc.? Availability of the devel version will give possibility to those that want to play with new features accepting the risk and lighten the pressure on maintainers to commit the new version to the main line. Again - I can try to do the php52 port if it have sense. Miroslav Lachman ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
