Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:18523
Return-Path: <steph@zend.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 46754 invoked by uid 1010); 29 Aug 2005 12:43:12 -0000
Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net
Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 46739 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2005 12:43:12 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 29 Aug 2005 12:43:12 -0000
X-Host-Fingerprint: 192.38.9.232 gw2.emini.dk Linux 2.4/2.6
Received: from ([192.38.9.232:5215] helo=gw2.emini.dk)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.0 beta r(6323M)) with SMTP
	id D8/9D-15098-0E203134 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Mon, 29 Aug 2005 08:43:12 -0400
Received: from foxbox (client-448-p-1-lns.glfd.dial.virgin.net [81.103.145.191])
	by gw2.emini.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 9227580B4D; Mon, 29 Aug 2005 14:43:03 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <16b901c5ac97$3532fba0$9cd96751@foxbox>
Reply-To: "Steph" <steph@zend.com>
To: "John Coggeshall" <john@coggeshall.org>
Cc: <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0508280348230.29820@arfg.argcubovn.sv> <43110D8D.9080008@lerdorf.com> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0508280410340.29820@arfg.argcubovn.sv> <1125193332.27570.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <12fe01c5abdc$229e6d50$9cd96751@foxbox> <1125269439.27570.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> <16a201c5ac8c$271c4450$9cd96751@foxbox> <1125316713.11271.5.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 14:43:00 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1506
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: PHP 5.1: Does it still require ext/xmlrpc for pear?
From: steph@zend.com ("Steph")

> > That's fair enough, so long as the older version is readily available.
It
> > becomes a problem if it isn't.  The word 'replace' kind of intimates
that
> > the original extension is effectively a goner - and if you meant
'replace in
> > the core', I'm unaware of a precedent for that.
>
> Yes.

Yes what?  :)

>
> Cheers,
>
> John