| 1 |
On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 03:43:10PM +0000, Casey Allen Shobe - SeattleServer Mailing Lists wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Friday 22 April 2005 23:26, Omer Cohen wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I've been working with it since it came out. |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > And I made big projects with more then a few classes and objects and it all |
| 6 |
> > worked fine, I didn't have any problems with it. |
| 7 |
> > It's not like a group of 100 people from microsoft tested it and said it's |
| 8 |
> > ok, the entire community of PHP developers agreed it's alright and aprooved |
| 9 |
> > it. |
| 10 |
> > we're talking about one of the biggest OC communities. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > I believe it's stable enough to get marked as stable on the portage tree. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > Regarding the remark of not overriding the system, what I ment is that I |
| 15 |
> > there's no reason to manualy unmask a stable product.. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I strongly agree. We actually lost a client recently because we adhere to the |
| 18 |
> stable tree of Gentoo but our PHP was too dated for them (they wanted PHP |
| 19 |
> 5.x). |
| 20 |
5.x is in portage since many months. Just use keywords. Just |
| 21 |
customize. Even brand-new Redhat Enterprise 4.0 provides 4.3.9-x only. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
funnily enough the PHP Guys recommended Apache 1.3 only for a long time. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Jürgen |
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives