On 8/23/05, Ian Eure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 23 August 2005 05:46 pm, Joe Stump wrote: > > I agree. I never understood why we used the PHP license over, say, > > the BSD or LGPL (which both fit library level type code a lot better > > IMO). To have the license require distribution of PHP is a little > > odd. What I'm a tad more confused about is why anyone would maintain > > their packages through apt instead of pear. > > > > pear upgrade Package_Name > > > > - or - > > > > pear upgrade-all > > > > Translates about as well as "apt-get install php4-pear-package-name" > > I would think. > > > - Consistency. If there were many packaging systems, the OS as a whole would > be an inconsistent mishmash. > - Security. Debian has a centralized security system, and using a 3rd-party > packaging system on a Debian box defeats that. > - Because Debian Stable should be Debian Stable. PEAR_FooBar 1.0.6 may have a > fix for a security issue or critical bug, but may break in relation to > 0.9.0b3 or 1.0.1, as shipped with the last Debian Stable. Upgrading to > PEAR_FooBar 1.0.6 is an unknown quantity, while you know that your packages > will only get BC fixes when upgrading with apt-get. >
And someone working in Debian is checking all PEAR packages for BC breaks? Come on now. PEAR packages adhere to BC rules. Any stable package *may not break BC*. If a new release breaks BC it's a bug and will be fixed either by the author or the QA team. I honestly don't see how a Debian maintainer is going to know about and deal with BC problems any better than the PEAR QA team. -- Justin Patrin