Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:29192 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 31487 invoked by uid 1010); 4 May 2007 19:36:56 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 31472 invoked from network); 4 May 2007 19:36:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 4 May 2007 19:36:56 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=mls@pooteeweet.org; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=mls@pooteeweet.org; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain pooteeweet.org from 212.112.227.169 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: mls@pooteeweet.org X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.112.227.169 ipx11223.ipxserver.de Linux 2.5 (sometimes 2.4) (4) Received: from [212.112.227.169] ([212.112.227.169:47142] helo=ipx11223.ipxserver.de) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 89/36-21644-D2B8B364 for ; Fri, 04 May 2007 15:36:14 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ipx11223.ipxserver.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 599EFA580C2; Fri, 4 May 2007 21:36:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ipx11223.ipxserver.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (flottensignalgeber [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 14156-02; Fri, 4 May 2007 21:36:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (adsl-76-211-191-214.dsl.austtx.sbcglobal.net [76.211.191.214]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ipx11223.ipxserver.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id D78F7A58022; Fri, 4 May 2007 21:36:06 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <463B8B26.3050903@pooteeweet.org> Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 12:36:06 -0700 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ilia Alshanetsky Cc: Edin Kadribasic , Antony Dovgal , Marcus Boerger , internals@lists.php.net References: <139872287.20070504170744@marcus-boerger.de> <9DC00D11-00A5-40DB-A397-8454C48FA448@prohost.org> <1525138013.20070504193205@marcus-boerger.de> <463B70A1.4010505@zend.com> <463B7232.7000205@php.net> <463B860E.9050306@pooteeweet.org> <5AFCE876-D9EC-4CDF-8130-96355DBFA8C2@prohost.org> In-Reply-To: <5AFCE876-D9EC-4CDF-8130-96355DBFA8C2@prohost.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by somedaemon at backendmedia.com Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Starting 5.3 From: mls@pooteeweet.org (Lukas Kahwe Smith) Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: > > On 4-May-07, at 3:14 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: > >> Yes, to me the question is only if we want to give the message that >> software producers should be able to expect phar to be there on 99% of >> the systems. Thats the only way that phar has a good chance of really >> taking off as a php code distribution approach. > > It sounds like the merits of having phar is would only be apparent after > it is included in the core and everyone starts using it because of that. > This won't happen simply because most software producers can't rely on > extensions that are only available in version X. No, the point is that if we want to push something, we need to add it sooner rather than later, because there will be a delay anyways. Also simply by putting it into core, we make sure that phar gets into the long terms plans of users (which are then more likely to accept the transition pain, because they know its going to be around and maintained). regards, Lukas