Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:99142 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 2552 invoked from network); 24 May 2017 13:21:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 24 May 2017 13:21:15 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=lester@lsces.co.uk; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=lester@lsces.co.uk; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain lsces.co.uk designates 185.153.204.204 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: lester@lsces.co.uk X-Host-Fingerprint: 185.153.204.204 mail4.serversure.net Linux 2.6 Received: from [185.153.204.204] ([185.153.204.204:45956] helo=mail4.serversure.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id B1/89-10292-9C885295 for ; Wed, 24 May 2017 09:21:14 -0400 Received: (qmail 7189 invoked by uid 89); 24 May 2017 13:21:11 -0000 Received: by simscan 1.3.1 ppid: 7183, pid: 7186, t: 0.0430s scanners: attach: 1.3.1 clamav: 0.96/m:52/d:10677 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.0.0.7?) (lester@rainbowdigitalmedia.org.uk@81.138.11.136) by mail4.serversure.net with ESMTPA; 24 May 2017 13:21:11 -0000 To: internals@lists.php.net References: <44F2A014-7DA2-49EF-A706-342C5657B615@gmail.com> <1494430967.4177.11.camel@schlueters.de> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 14:21:11 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Snapping php From: lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine) On 24/05/17 12:36, Alan Pope wrote: > I appreciate the comments from everyone on the subject of snapping > php. I'm keen to pass your honest feedback to our team, so we can > understand why some software developers aren't keen on investing time > to make a snap. Since maintenance is already a little slow across many of the linux distributions, adding more third party options is not a core project matter? Windows is a little bit of a problem case since the vast majority of users would not know where to start compiling from source, so providing a clean binary source makes sense while people are prepared to maintain it. There is no problem with a third party creating a 'snap' and supporting that, just as several sites provide pre-packaged windows and even linux installs of the web stack. If that process becomes well supported, then it can be reviewed, much like composer seems to have taken over as the package manager of choice. It's still not the core way of managing things. It's a matter of choice. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk