Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:68683
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sury.org designates 209.85.212.45 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <521F0E47.5060808@sugarcrm.com>
References: <CALjhHG8FPmGYSk5g6JV7_Hq7GAeFH+US6R3K9FO_1Thneju+LA@mail.gmail.com>
 <521E468E.5070406@sugarcrm.com> <CALjhHG-+Nv-daK2FS5opzux+mSn5BQbWzMVndW-PrqM5tAAR+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <521F0E47.5060808@sugarcrm.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:13:03 +0200
Message-ID: <CALjhHG9D793EnXMh+agm1=wGui=f8xr62JSmyB5qAh1Sj=20Tg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3439707b6bec04e516b5dc
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Attitude against distributions... (Was: JSON non-free license)
From: ondrej@sury.org (=?UTF-8?B?T25kxZllaiBTdXLDvQ==?=)

--047d7b3439707b6bec04e516b5dc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>wro=
te:

> So if something is a question which needs
> discussion, it is proper to raise it to the list, that doesn't mean
> automatically it's considered not important or not worth fixing - quite
> the contrary, raising it on the list makes sure more people are aware of
> it and can participate in solving it.


Ok, point taken.


>  > The "non-free" part of the archive is only a last resort solution. Whe=
n
> you
> > move something to non-free, you also need to move any package that
> > depends into a contrib part of the archive, and that would be much wors=
e
> > than replacing embedded json extension with the pecl that Remi wrote.
>
> Could you describe the reasons why it would be much worse? I.e. how the
> user experience changes, what additional actions, if any, users would
> have to do, etc.?


Snippet from Debian Developers manual:

> Packages which do not conform to the DFSG are placed in the non-free
section. These packages are *not considered as part of the Debian
distribution*, though we enable their use, and we provide infrastructure
(such as our bug-tracking system and mailing lists) for non-free software
packages.

Also non-free (and contrib) are not enabled by default (I think), so people
would have to modify their apt/sources.lists to enable the extra archive.

Any package depending on php5 would have to be moved to the contrib/
section (again not enabled by default), e.g. every packaged extension and
every packaged web app. That's simply not going to fly just because of JSON
extension. It could happen only if you have relicenced whole PHP under some
non-free license and were not willing to relicense it back (but I think in
this case somebody would fork PHP as it happened to some other big projects
before - f.e. XFree86 vs Xorg).

And I even don't want to imagine the scale of the fallout from such
transfer from main to non-free for PHP.

I am asking this because right now as far as I can see
> while json-c is in good shape, it has certain performance issues and
> compatibility issues. I hope they would be fixed, but I think we need to
> have all the options laid out before us to evaluate.


Well, basically the pecl-json-c is now a default provider of JSON extension
in Debian (and Fedora) and the downstream distributions (Ubuntu, RHEL, ...)=
.

And I don't even know if Fedora has similar place to put non-free packages.

O.
--=20
=EF=BB=BFOnd=C5=99ej Sur=C3=BD <ondrej@sury.org>
Have you tried Knot DNS =E2=80=93 https://www.knot-dns.cz/
=E2=80=93 a high-performance authoritative-only DNS server

--047d7b3439707b6bec04e516b5dc--