Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:87740 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 39476 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2015 11:35:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 13 Aug 2015 11:35:26 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=cmbecker69@gmx.de; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=cmbecker69@gmx.de; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmx.de designates 212.227.17.22 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: cmbecker69@gmx.de X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.227.17.22 mout.gmx.net Received: from [212.227.17.22] ([212.227.17.22:50338] helo=mout.gmx.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 48/C3-00702-BF08CC55 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 07:35:24 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.100] ([91.67.244.142]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Lkzph-1Yph9m3K1F-00an5U; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 13:35:19 +0200 Message-ID: <55CC80FC.5070306@gmx.de> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 13:35:24 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anatol Belski , 'PHP internals' References: <55CA26DF.3030109@gmx.de> <03dd01d0d476$c75b6730$56123590$@belski.net> <55CA646F.8020506@gmx.de> <040101d0d4ca$656f4e20$304dea60$@belski.net> In-Reply-To: <040101d0d4ca$656f4e20$304dea60$@belski.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:mSYAq0tc2lLVmtaeQtEdO9aS3DlNomaBcc8FDzaETWOTmDn1sL5 RIl0MZ9KAjUYxzCq3eTttR/TVqXz+y7mV92e7C+5pnwBlWZY9qrMYJwEUnMChe8TUQ4Iwr6 0PhkGK2Hzxya/MrzgnwzYH2XFOiVuO++Vy+Chm1sMArteJ8I7qPR+RxRuBhTzYKTttsVQtF kDKVOHnj2wRLTpa5oBjJA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:yApb4L+EUCA=:TH6vOEIWnjHw5dWgO5goS7 4ySKSjYa0F1aRt5HixmH7QTOATBPRci7dv+RSiFNLF9kIe+mMrjtQScgxdRrhNyJU5II8mfl6 g7aDxYiMkMYg1RJCmYE7t/TT5DFhtrsWxZVAHdhUeSrX/dN0/VRH9aBIF77eZkf+VdXNRbQQG edjDdznqWABeI0qWD2Kd/LT+BCCftVAlSHm6UvBCf5rlI16Z1M1Mk5bQK/NtFeQkzoJVsiX+8 uDHSY1R3/fXolDHcNT9N/4tfCet0Lxx9eMpqkJcTdqFPsttgu8rdrl6l5S634oJsTyUsr4z5j DxeYqsUbMMRfyPjOolWVNpmiu+WQPtGgDjBxVJeyr0bVyMtPMSp8wpKmqTtwe/q25TBtufAQ+ e6UBdHBpTdRiw57gxbl/KvF+v0t5/K49SpayA0siPIDOe/wZSQhqCeUed51m/O20+ziXv1kfd SC9dclMnmdG2aENRi2NBF0fqqnX5R7OkJ/83mqpYsGsfwZDesOG6rImqoWNiuYjpkiEr5P2XB +wWObhMxIRfbc74nrko+TNdO5dTuxQvxhSlS+Ph3sIh1ThB3fjjtC2I3PsKmWnh6nqra4Oayd 3AGuaoGEWBjPv1ZlggJdRjntVmyCteO0wmpqSRKPM0zoWHBxda5aFUrYHFfg/6/uQJ1cMsShI yy018+N/wqwiiVB260uYZfEDgT3/lcIirHbBK+aOKQuFdADr4R3K3dkoxOioXWswZIHT3MA3d ktmoGd8/SRL7iSNTVhf0hA7DIaxeBed5YbvRmA== Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] libpcre version requirements From: cmbecker69@gmx.de (Christoph Becker) On 12.08.2015 at 08:44, Anatol Belski wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Christoph Becker [mailto:cmbecker69@gmx.de] >> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 11:09 PM >> To: Anatol Belski ; 'PHP internals' >> >> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] libpcre version requirements >> >> Still, I would suggest to raise the libpcre requirements to PCRE >= 8.0 for PHP 7.0 >> or at least for PHP 7.1. > > [...] However look - http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/os-linux/all/all . From those, CentOS 5/6 releases are not even a year old and contain 6.6, 7.x but take 20% of all the Linux market share. Note that according to that Linux takes only 35.9% of it. Now, say disregarding CentOS 5 and other rare/too old platforms, the other 65% of the usages are not taken into account. So how much loss on PHP7 adoption would happen, is a question. Maybe there are other stats, just operating on what is available. > > On the other hand - as with the bug #70232, is it really worth disabling the whole PCRE just to be sure one bug is fixed? I would see it as not being such. It is clear, that no distro will suddenly be upgrading from say PHP 5.3 to PHP7 in an older branch, but keeping as much compat as possible will allow third party repositories to still provide PHP7 there. This is at least my reason to say the version shouldn't be raised - as it shouldn't go beyond 7.x at least because of CentOS 6, and then it is probably useless to do it ATM. As long as it doesn't block the work towards future, at least. Well, then it might be best to leave the requirements as they are for now. :) -- Christoph M. Becker