# Apache 2.4 support in PHP 5.4.0? - Thread: https://externals.io/message/58007 - Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/58007 - Started by Christopher Jones on 2012-02-24T19:46:22+00:00 - Messages: 19 - Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net - More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt --- ## #58007 — Christopher Jones — 2012-02-24T19:46:22+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/58007#58007 Stas, David, If you're planning to have a PHP 5.4 RC9, should Apache 2.4 support be included? This would reduce any negative user sentiment that "PHP 5.4 doesn't even support the latest Apache". There is a patch attached to https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=61172 It needs review and wider testing. The issue has an obvious (if you find the bug) solution. The decision is mostly for good public relations, which shouldn't be discounted. Chris -- Email: christopher.jones@oracle.com Tel: +1 650 506 8630 Blog: http://blogs.oracle.com/opal/ --- ## #58009 — Stas Malyshev — 2012-02-24T19:57:50+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/58007#58009 · In reply to: #58007 Hi! > If you're planning to have a PHP 5.4 RC9, should Apache 2.4 support be > included? This would reduce any negative user sentiment that "PHP 5.4 > doesn't even support the latest Apache". Latest Apache is about 3 days old now :) If somebody expects PHP to have release version supporting new major version of Apache within days of the new release I feel his expectations need to be adjusted. I certainly wouldn't expect it. > > There is a patch attached to https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=61172 > It needs review and wider testing. I don't think it is a critical fix, so it's not for 5.4.0. For 5.4.1 we will consider it, and for trunk it can go in right now if somebody validates it. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227 --- ## #58010 — Klaus Silveira — 2012-02-24T19:59:21+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/58007#58010 · In reply to: #58009 I agree with Stas on this one. Certainly not critical and needs some review while on the trunk. On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > > > If you're planning to have a PHP 5.4 RC9, should Apache 2.4 support be > > […] > > Latest Apache is about 3 days old now :) If somebody expects PHP to have > release version supporting new major version of Apache within days of the > new release I feel his expectations need to be adjusted. I certainly > wouldn't expect it. > > > > > […] > > I don't think it is a critical fix, so it's not for 5.4.0. For 5.4.1 we > will consider it, and for trunk it can go in right now if somebody > validates it. > -- > Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect > SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ > (408)454-6900 ext. 227 --- ## #58011 — Kris Craig — 2012-02-24T20:01:36+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/58007#58011 · In reply to: #58009 Yeah I agree with Stas. I definitely think this is a good idea and should be included, but since we're already in the RC phase for 5.4.0 and Apache 2.4 is only a few days old, I don't think it's necessary to rush it into 5.4.0 (which has already been delayed far too many times already). Definitely needs to go through the full QA cycle! Both Unix and Windows. Does anyone know if Apache finally decided to start supporting VC9 in 2.4? --Kris On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > > > If you're planning to have a PHP 5.4 RC9, should Apache 2.4 support be > > […] > > Latest Apache is about 3 days old now :) If somebody expects PHP to have > release version supporting new major version of Apache within days of the > new release I feel his expectations need to be adjusted. I certainly > wouldn't expect it. > > > > > […] > > I don't think it is a critical fix, so it's not for 5.4.0. For 5.4.1 we > will consider it, and for trunk it can go in right now if somebody > validates it. > -- > Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect > SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ > (408)454-6900 ext. 227 --- ## #58012 — Gustavo Lopes — 2012-02-24T20:02:47+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/58007#58012 · In reply to: #58009 On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 20:57:50 +0100, Stas Malyshev wrote: > > […] > > Latest Apache is about 3 days old now :) > [...] > > > […] > > [...] In any case, I think a release note pointing to this issue and the provisional solution would be a good idea. -- Gustavo Lopes --- ## #58014 — Christopher Jones — 2012-02-24T20:11:15+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/58007#58014 · In reply to: #58009 > Hi! > > > […] > > Latest Apache is about 3 days old now :) If somebody expects PHP to > have release version supporting new major version of Apache within > days of the new release I feel his expectations need to be > adjusted. I certainly wouldn't expect it. > I kinda think Apache 2.4 was under development a bit longer than three days, so PHP could reasonably have been expected to know what was coming. > > […] > > I don't think it is a critical fix, so it's not for 5.4.0. For 5.4.1 > we will consider it, I've no problems with the umpires decision. Hopefully this thread will aid web-searchers in locating the patch. > and for trunk it can go in right now if somebody validates it. Chris -- Email: christopher.jones@oracle.com Tel: +1 650 506 8630 Blog: http://blogs.oracle.com/opal/ --- ## #58015 — Kris Craig — 2012-02-24T20:19:53+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/58007#58015 · In reply to: #58014 These things often tend to move slowly. I'm bewildered that most Linux repos still use PHP 5.1. The problem is, this patch has not yet gone through the QA wash cycle. That takes time. The only way to get it into 5.4.0, therefore, would be to delay it even further. I needn't remind anybody here that we're already a month late on that. Adding any more delays to fix anything other than critical bugs should be avoided in my opinion. --Kris On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Christopher Jones < christopher.jones@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > > > […] > I kinda think Apache 2.4 was under development a bit longer than three > days, so PHP could reasonably have been expected to know what was > coming. > > > There is a patch attached to https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?**id=61172 > > […] > > I've no problems with the umpires decision. Hopefully this thread > will aid web-searchers in locating the patch. > > > and for trunk it can go in right now if somebody validates it. > > […] > > Chris > > -- > Email: christopher.jones@oracle.com > Tel: +1 650 506 8630 > Blog: http://blogs.oracle.com/opal/ --- ## #58016 — Kris Craig — 2012-02-24T20:20:17+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/58007#58016 · In reply to: #58014 These things often tend to move slowly. I'm bewildered that most Linux repos still use PHP 5.1. The problem is, this patch has not yet gone through the QA wash cycle. That takes time. The only way to get it into 5.4.0, therefore, would be to delay it even further. I needn't remind anybody here that we're already a month late on that. Adding any more delays to fix anything other than critical bugs should be avoided in my opinion. --Kris On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Christopher Jones < christopher.jones@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > > > […] > I kinda think Apache 2.4 was under development a bit longer than three > days, so PHP could reasonably have been expected to know what was > coming. > > > There is a patch attached to https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?**id=61172 > > […] > > I've no problems with the umpires decision. Hopefully this thread > will aid web-searchers in locating the patch. > > > and for trunk it can go in right now if somebody validates it. > > […] > > Chris > > -- > Email: christopher.jones@oracle.com > Tel: +1 650 506 8630 > Blog: http://blogs.oracle.com/opal/ --- ## #58018 — Sebastian Bergmann — 2012-02-24T20:46:36+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/58007#58018 · In reply to: #58014 > I kinda think Apache 2.4 was under development a bit longer than three > days, so PHP could reasonably have been expected to know what was > coming. Maybe it just shows that less and less people care about Apache, including PHP core developers. -- Sebastian Bergmann Co-Founder and Principal Consultant http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ http://thePHP.cc/ --- ## #58021 — Pierre Joye — 2012-02-24T20:51:15+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/58007#58021 · In reply to: #58018 > > > […] We have been providing 2.3 support with our builds for the full 5.4 release phases, so I have to disagree with that. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org --- ## #58024 — Lester Caine — 2012-02-24T21:21:39+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/58007#58024 · In reply to: #58018 Sebastian Bergmann wrote: > Maybe it just shows that less and less people care about Apache, We have just taken over another small web hosting company ... first job move all of the windows/ASP sites on to the local Apache/PHP framework servers so we can add all the feature the customers have been clamouring for. And then scrap the outsourced windows hosting :) It will save a lot of money each month and get some of the speed back which has been a problem for them recently. There are more than enough people who only care for Apache and only use that, 66% of the worlds sites ... -- 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// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php --- ## #58028 — Kris Craig — 2012-02-24T21:31:56+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/58007#58028 · In reply to: #58024 Regardless, I think this part of the conversation is pointless. I personally couldn't care less whether anybody thinks we're supporting new Apache builds quickly enough or whose fault it is if the newest one doesn't make it into the current build. The finger pointing is just a petty distraction that we really don't need since our attention should be focused on getting 5.4.0 out the door. So let's just set all that crap aside, ok? All that matters right now is that this is an important solution but it still needs to be tested, and therefore won't be ready in time for the 5.4.0 release. Therefore, let's get this committed to the trunk and be done with it. Then, once 5.4.0 is finally released, this 2.4 support can be tested alongside all the other things that will be going into 5.4.1 via our normal process. Problem solved. =) --Kris > Sebastian Bergmann wrote: > > > […] > > We have just taken over another small web hosting company ... first job > move all of the windows/ASP sites on to the local Apache/PHP framework > servers so we can add all the feature the customers have been clamouring > for. And then scrap the outsourced windows hosting :) It will save a lot of > money each month and get some of the speed back which has been a problem > for them recently. > There are more than enough people who only care for Apache and only use > that, 66% of the worlds sites ... > > -- > 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// > Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/**index.php Hi! > > > […] > > Latest Apache is about 3 days old now :) If somebody expects PHP to have release version supporting new major > version of Apache within days of the new release I feel his expectations need to be adjusted. I certainly wouldn't > expect it. yes and no yes, it is brand new no because both PHP 5.4 and Apache 2.4 was devel-versions for a long time --- ## #58032 — Stas Malyshev — 2012-02-24T21:43:59+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/58007#58032 · In reply to: #58030 Hi! > no because both PHP 5.4 and Apache 2.4 was devel-versions for a long time It may be anywhere "for a long time", but it was raised here first time today, as far as I know. It's too late for 5.4.0, there's no point talking about it, this ship has sailed. But for the future, if you (not meaning you personally but in general anybody reading this) care about some feature and want it in, the right way to do it is to raise the issue as early as possible. If the issue is raised in RC8, unless it's a remotely exploitable security hole, it pretty much guarantees it won't be in the release. If it's late then it's late. Trunk is the right place to go with new features. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227 --- ## #58047 — Bostjan Skufca — 2012-02-24T23:09:09+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/58007#58047 · In reply to: #58028 Despite the fact that Apache HTTPD's website says that 2.4.1 "represents the best available version of Apache HTTP Server", and that PHP 5.4.0 will probably also bear similar notation (guesswork here!), very few (if any!) production environments are going to even bother considering running first minor version of any major release. For both, they will probably wait for 2.4.2(-5) and 5.4.1(-4) because with every major release there is a high suspicion about new bugs that may have been introduced during the development process (besides the documented backwards compatibility breaks). Given all above, no serious user of Apache+PHP will mind if PHP team introduces necesary code changes into PHP between versions 5.4.0 and 5.4.1, in order to support Apache Httpd 2.4.x in 5.4.x releases later on. Again, why? Because they will skip 5.4.0 in production. And 2.4.1 too. My 2 cents, b. > Regardless, I think this part of the conversation is pointless. I > personally couldn't care less whether anybody thinks we're supporting new > Apache builds quickly enough or whose fault it is if the newest one doesn't > make it into the current build. The finger pointing is just a petty > distraction that we really don't need since our attention should be focused > on getting 5.4.0 out the door. > > So let's just set all that crap aside, ok? All that matters right now is > that this is an important solution but it still needs to be tested, and > therefore won't be ready in time for the 5.4.0 release. Therefore, let's > get this committed to the trunk and be done with it. Then, once 5.4.0 is > finally released, this 2.4 support can be tested alongside all the other > things that will be going into 5.4.1 via our normal process. Problem > solved. =) > > --Kris > > > > > > […] > of > > […] > http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact> > > […] > http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php --- ## #58051 — Reindl Harald — 2012-02-24T23:18:25+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/58007#58051 · In reply to: #58047 Am 25.02.2012 00:09, schrieb Bostjan Skufca: > Despite the fact that Apache HTTPD's website says that 2.4.1 "represents > the best available version of Apache HTTP Server", and that PHP 5.4.0 will > probably also bear similar notation (guesswork here!), very few (if any!) > production environments are going to even bother considering running first > minor version of any major release. > > For both, they will probably wait for 2.4.2(-5) and 5.4.1(-4) because with > every major release there is a high suspicion about new bugs that may have > been introduced during the development process (besides the documented > backwards compatibility breaks). > > Given all above, no serious user of Apache+PHP will mind if PHP team > introduces necesary code changes into PHP between versions 5.4.0 and 5.4.1, > in order to support Apache Httpd 2.4.x in 5.4.x releases later on. > > Again, why? Because they will skip 5.4.0 in production. And 2.4.1 too. you are missing the fact that many consider testing the new major versions and many of them will only start testing PHP 5.4 in combination with Apache 2.4 why? because you have ONE big test challenge at once * httpd * httpd-extensions * php * php-extensions / pecl-extensions * your applications with both of them nobody will start consider PHP 5.4 if Apache 2.4 is on the internal roadmap before both work together because it would mean the whole work twice in other words: if both work together ASAP i wil consider both in 2012, if not both will be delayed to 2013 --- ## #58054 — Bostjan Skufca — 2012-02-24T23:40:34+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/58007#58054 · In reply to: #58051 > > > > […] > > you are missing the fact that many consider testing the new major versions > and many of them will only start testing PHP 5.4 in combination with > Apache 2.4 > > ... in other words: if both work together ASAP i wil consider both > in 2012, if not both will be delayed to 2013 > True, but I believe 2.4.2 and 5.4.1 will see the light of the day pretty soon (IF 5.4.0 will be released soon:). b. --- ## #58104 — Adam Harvey — 2012-02-27T01:12:16+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/58007#58104 · In reply to: #58012 > On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 20:57:50 +0100, Stas Malyshev > wrote: > > > […] > > > In any case, I think a release note pointing to this issue and the > provisional solution would be a good idea. +1. Release note + link to the patch (and a request for people who have it work/not work to give feedback) is fine, I think. Adam --- ## #58105 — Kris Craig — 2012-02-27T01:21:21+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/58007#58105 · In reply to: #58104 So long as that release note clarifies that this patch has NOT yet gone through the QA cycle and that, therefore, you use it at your own risk; then I have no objection to that approach. --Kris > > > […] > smalyshev@sugarcrm.com> > > […] > > +1. Release note + link to the patch (and a request for people who > have it work/not work to give feedback) is fine, I think. > > Adam