Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: PHP5 Unstable ?

[Omer Cohen]

The thing is, that while there's thew newest version (5.0.4) which had 
all/most of the bugs fixed since 5.0, the original 5.0 version is still 
being "tested".

I think that after 5.0 was released you should have waitied for about a 
month or so to let people discover bugs like they did, and released 
patches/updates.
5.0.4 has been stable for quite a while, meaning most of the major things 
are fixed if not all of them.
So atleast add it to the tree, if not stable then atleast masked.

On 4/25/05, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote:
>
> Omer Cohen posted <30e61698050422051322736ee3@××××××××××.com>, excerpted
> below, on Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:13:51 +0200:
>
> > PHP 5.0 was released a long time ago, and alot of fixes and patches were
> > released after it to make sure it's sable.
> >
> > According to PHP.net <http://PHP.net> <http://php.net/> the stable
> versions are PHP 5.0.4 &&
> > 4.3.11
> > 4.3.11 is marked stable, but 5.0.4 dosn't even exist on the tree.
> >
> > 5.0.0 isn't marked at all, and everything till 5.0.3-r2 is marked are
> hard
> > masked and still being tested.
> >
> > It's been like this for a long time now.
> >
> > As a PHP developer I believe that 5.0.4 is more then stable, and should
> be
> > added and marked stable.
> >
> > I don't wanna override the system and install it manualy.
>
> OK, I see a big discussion, but nobody has yet made this point, directly
> at least, so here it is...
>
> I agree that 5.0.4 should at least be in the tree, if upstream is calling
> it stable.
>
> The point that should be emphasized, however, is that there's a /big/
> difference between the upstream application being "stable", and Gentoo's
> particular instance, that is, the ebuild script that merges it onto a
> Gentoo system, being stable. Gentoo's keywording, while somewhat
> correlating with upstream in that what upstream has declared a beta or RC
> is often never arch-stable keyworded on Gentoo, generally serves to
> indicate the Gentoo ebuild maintainer's evaluation of the stability of the
> EBUILD, *NOT* the stability (or lack thereof) of the upstream source.
>
> Thus, as I said above, yes, the version that upstream calls "stable"
> should reasonably be expected to be in the portage tree in some form
> within a reasonable (few week, often less) time, however, one can't always
> expect that said portage tree version will be marked stable just because
> upstream defines that particular version of their product as stable,
> because the status of the Gentoo instance of it, the ebuild, may itself
> not be stable, on one or more archs, possibly on all of them.
>
> In this instance, >=php-5.0 on Gentoo is hard masked, not because of what
> upsteam says, but because (presumably) there have been and remain
> unresolved issues with the Gentoo deployment. Something in Gentoo's
> previous deployments conflicts with the current 5.0 layout, and a smooth
> transition hasn't yet been worked out and fully tested, so the 5.x series
> remains hard masked.
>
> Ignoring for the moment the issue of the 5.0.4 upstream-stable version
> itself not being in the tree at all, if a sysadmin is suitably comfortable
> with php-5.x, and either understands the issues keeping it masked on
> Gentoo and knows they don't apply in his case or at least is willing to
> extend the effort to work around any issues that may appear, said sysadmin
> is entirely free to package.unmask, or add keywords in an overlay, as
> appropriate. That's why the portage system has been designed with that
> flexibility in place, after all -- so it can be used at the decision of
> the individual Gentoo user -- aka the local Gentoo system sysadmin.
>
> --
> Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
> "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
> and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in
> http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html
>
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list
>
>


-- 
Thanks,
Omer Cohen
www.omerc.net <http://www.omerc.net>
omerc.net@×××××.com