Hi,
I recently noticed that on http://www.php.net/downloads.php,
"Redhat/CentOS Binaries" link to a third party repository [1].
First, this could be confused for users, as this is not a Red Hat or
CentOS official repository.
Why PHP project (seems to) recommend the use of a third party repository
among others ?
Yes, I'm probably offended because I also maintain a third repository
[2], trying to be as close of upstream as possible, as complete as
possible (ex: php 5.3.17 / 5.4.7 [3] or latest msgpack extension [4]
already there, with more than 300 php-* packages)
It seems (at least to me) that this should be clarified.
Best regards,
Remi.
[1] http://iuscommunity.org/
[2] http://rpms.famillecollet.com/
[3] http://blog.famillecollet.com/post/2012/09/14/php-5.3.17-and-php-5.4.7
[4] http://blog.famillecollet.com/post/2012/09/15/php-pecl-msgpack-0.5.2-en
2012.09.15. 9:47, "Remi Collet" remi@fedoraproject.org ezt írta:
Hi,
I recently noticed that on http://www.php.net/downloads.php,
"Redhat/CentOS Binaries" link to a third party repository [1].First, this could be confused for users, as this is not a Red Hat or
CentOS official repository.Why PHP project (seems to) recommend the use of a third party repository
among others ?Yes, I'm probably offended because I also maintain a third repository
[2], trying to be as close of upstream as possible, as complete as
possible (ex: php 5.3.17 / 5.4.7 [3] or latest msgpack extension [4]
already there, with more than 300 php-* packages)It seems (at least to me) that this should be clarified.
Best regards,
Remi.[1] http://iuscommunity.org/
[2] http://rpms.famillecollet.com/
[3] http://blog.famillecollet.com/post/2012/09/14/php-5.3.17-and-php-5.4.7
[4]
http://blog.famillecollet.com/post/2012/09/15/php-pecl-msgpack-0.5.2-en--
http://git.php.net/?p=web/php.git;a=commit;h=6d85653df2e1cb2c97003f0c42000f2129f976e1
It seems somebody mailed the webmaster list and Hannes added them to that
page.
They are there because they provided up-to-date packages for redhat/centos.
You problem is that we advertise community repos, or that we don't
advertise yours?
Le 15/09/2012 10:58, Ferenc Kovacs a écrit :
http://git.php.net/?p=web/php.git;a=commit;h=6d85653df2e1cb2c97003f0c42000f2129f976e1
It seems somebody mailed the webmaster list and Hannes added them to
that page.
They are there because they provided up-to-date packages for redhat/centos.
You problem is that we advertise community repos, or that we don't
advertise yours?
Both.
But also (and mainly) because this is a confusing "link".
I would really prefer something like
IUS community for Red Hat / CentOS
And of course, if mine is added
Remi repository for Fedora / Red Hat / CentOS
Regards,
Remi.
But also (and mainly) because this is a confusing "link".
Perhaps this link will clarify the situation for you: http://xkcd.com/175/
--Kris
Remi Collet wrote:
I recently noticed that onhttp://www.php.net/downloads.php,
"Redhat/CentOS Binaries" link to a third party repository [1].First, this could be confused for users, as this is not a Red Hat or
CentOS official repository.Why PHP project (seems to) recommend the use of a third party repository
among others ?
Since the IUS Comunity Project is provided by Rackspace who also support the PHP
project, it's perhaps not surprising that they get a listing? But a news page
which was last updated in July 2011 does not give much confidence in the offering!
Yes, I'm probably offended because I also maintain a third repository
[2], trying to be as close of upstream as possible, as complete as
possible (ex: php 5.3.17 / 5.4.7 [3] or latest msgpack extension [4]
already there, with more than 300 php-* packages)It seems (at least to me) that this should be clarified.
I've been annoying people here banging on about this for a long time ;)
Last night I spent a couple of hours again trying to find an 'off the shelf'
distribution that even had PHP5.4 and Apache2.4 ... My SUSE installations are
still well behind on 5.3 and the other hosted sites I've taken over are still
well and truly stuck with 5.2 as an upgrade to 5.3 recently was rolled back ...
too many sites went down!
I have got to the point where it seems to me WE need to maintain a directory
of distributions with details on which versions of the stack are supported since
trying to find 'current' even unsupported repositories are a problem, and the
latest LTS versions all look like they are going to maintain PHP5.3 for some
time to come!
YES we can install form source and build our own stack, but this requires
documentation on how to DISABLE updates to the manually installed stuff from the
necessary automatic updates. Certainly on SUSE something is getting messed up
between the manually installed stack, and the automatic security updates.
With reference to your own repository Remi - it only supports the PHP elements
and MySQL? Where does it link to Apache? I'd loaded Ubuntu on the recommendation
of others, but STILL can't find PHP5.4 and need 10.04 anyway which is an LTS
version for some other applications :( My MAJOR headache here is the different
configuration setups between distributions for Apache, PHP and in my case
Firebird ... having got all of the virtual hosting configured using the SUSE
style configuration structure, porting that to alternate configurations is not a
5 minute job.
--
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
Le 15/09/2012 11:09, Lester Caine a écrit :
Last night I spent a couple of hours again trying to find an 'off the
shelf' distribution that even had PHP5.4 and Apache2.4 ...
Fedora 18 have httpd 2.4.3 and php 5.4.7 ;)
(I have backports for f17)
With reference to your own repository Remi - it only supports the PHP
elements and MySQL? Where does it link to Apache?
Update from httpd 2.2 to 2.4 is not so simple...
Mainly the new access configuration (Require vs Allow) imply a lot of
work, and I don't want to break existing installations.
I think mod_access_compat doesn't work exactly as expected. It is ok to
"protect" a directory, but not to "open" one (access still denied by
mod_authz_core)
Remi.
Remi Collet wrote:
Last night I spent a couple of hours again trying to find an 'off the
shelf' distribution that even had PHP5.4 and Apache2.4 ...
Fedora 18 have httpd 2.4.3 and php 5.4.7;)
(I have backports for f17)
18 is downloading at the moment, but I could not find on the Fedora site any
reference to which versions of PHP and Apache were included ...
It's the same with most distributions :)
I'm not sure if Fedora even has a current Firebird ...
With reference to your own repository Remi - it only supports the PHP
elements and MySQL? Where does it link to Apache?
Update from httpd 2.2 to 2.4 is not so simple...
Mainly the new access configuration (Require vs Allow) imply a lot of
work, and I don't want to break existing installations.I think mod_access_compat doesn't work exactly as expected. It is ok to
"protect" a directory, but not to "open" one (access still denied by
mod_authz_core)
Actually that bit did not take too long to address, probably because of the way
SUSE modularises the config files. My problem tends to be using that
configuration with other installations ... including stock apache/php ones. I've
moved all of the package related php.ini stuff to it's own ext based .ini so I
only have to maintain the stuff I'm using and adding things like eaccelerator
and imagick then becomes logical, but on one supposedly identical setups the
'extra' .ini file directory is not being scanned ... not had time to figure why,
so I've just dumped them all in php.ini, but that is the main reason I'm trying
to find a current distribution that gets everything right! This stuff really is
a minefield out in the real world :)
--
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
Remi Collet wrote:
Last night I spent a couple of hours again trying to find an 'off the
shelf' distribution that even had PHP5.4 and Apache2.4 ...
Fedora 18 have httpd 2.4.3 and php 5.4.7;)
(I have backports for f17)
18 is downloading at the moment, but I could not find on the Fedora site any reference to which versions of PHP and Apache were included ...
It's the same with most distributions :)
I'm not sure if Fedora even has a current Firebird ...
Checked distrowatch?
David
David Muir wrote:
Remi Collet wrote:
Last night I spent a couple of hours again trying to find an 'off the
shelf' distribution that even had PHP5.4 and Apache2.4 ...
Fedora 18 have httpd 2.4.3 and php 5.4.7;)
(I have backports for f17)
18 is downloading at the moment, but I could not find on the Fedora site any reference to which versions of PHP and Apache were included ...
It's the same with most distributions:)
I'm not sure if Fedora even has a current Firebird ...
Checked distrowatch?
Still not listing a number of packages that I rely on although F17 does actually
have a current Firebird and eclipse, but not a current Apache.
and inkscape is ue when they can start shipping a WORKING installation disk for
R18 :( Wasted the afternoon on that.
Remi - I'm at the point where I have PHP5.4, but no access to Apache 2.4.
Slightly better than other starting points, but a bloody site more painful as
I'm on the 5th installation CD and stuck with F17 as I can't get 18 to install
at all. Not allowing access to manually set up the network is something that
should be mentioned somewhere ... I've three internet connections and need to
manually configure the IP settings as everything is on the one branch. 8 hours
in and I still don't have a working machine :(
--
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
2012.09.16. 4:36, "Lester Caine" lester@lsces.co.uk ezt írta:
David Muir wrote:
Remi Collet wrote:
Last night I spent a couple of hours again trying to find an
'off the
shelf' distribution that even had PHP5.4 and Apache2.4 ...Fedora 18 have httpd 2.4.3 and php 5.4.7;)
(I have backports for f17)18 is downloading at the moment, but I could not find on the Fedora
site any reference to which versions of PHP and Apache were included ...
It's the same with most distributions:)
I'm not sure if Fedora even has a current Firebird ...Checked distrowatch?
Still not listing a number of packages that I rely on although F17 does
actually have a current Firebird and eclipse, but not a current Apache.
and inkscape is ue when they can start shipping a WORKING installation
disk for R18 :( Wasted the afternoon on that.Remi - I'm at the point where I have PHP5.4, but no access to Apache 2.4.
Slightly better than other starting points, but a bloody site more painful
as I'm on the 5th installation CD and stuck with F17 as I can't get 18 to
install at all. Not allowing access to manually set up the network is
something that should be mentioned somewhere ... I've three internet
connections and need to manually configure the IP settings as everything is
on the one branch. 8 hours in and I still don't have a working machine :(--
Lester Caine - G8HFLContact - 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--
Could you please move this into a separate thread, as it is clearly a
different topic than the original.
Lester Caine wrote:
Checked distrowatch?
I had stopped checking distrowatch some years ago, mainly because I was happy
with the 'base' (SUSE) but also because at that time there was a lot 'missing'
from the listings. But I've found the 'All tracked packages' now ...
I've been having an in depth scout through this morning since Fedora is proving
just as difficult as other offerings I have tried over the last few weeks.
It's interesting to see which distributions are still on 5.2 and which have
skipped 5.3 altogether and are using 5.4 in 'head'. I'm even seeing PHP4! but I
suspect although distrowatch flag the listing as 'active' they are actually
dead. That and dead or incorrect links to distributions don't help ...
The thought that came to mind while looking through was "Is it better nowadays
to go for a distribution that does NOT include Apache/PHP?" And then manual
installs are not confused with older automatic updates. distrowatch flagged that
it's only since 8.10 ubuntu has had these bundled, which explains my notes when
trying out 8.04LTS which is still running on a couple of sites - not updated -
but safe because they are not accessible outside their local network.
But even if distrowatch says a distro supports 5.4, there is no easy way of
checking just what extensions are included and more important just what 'style'
of installation the distro is using. Remi's repo has every extension that I
would be using which is nice, and looks like it follows the /etc/php.d method of
extension management, but that is not always the case. However I have yet to
work out how to add that repo TO the Fedora package handler ... just another
area where every distro is different :(
--
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
Hi,
I recently noticed that on http://www.php.net/downloads.php,
"Redhat/CentOS Binaries" link to a third party repository [1].First, this could be confused for users, as this is not a Red Hat or
CentOS official repository.
None of these links are to any official distro repos as far as I know,
and we do not endorse them or maintain them or even officially support
them. If you know of any other relatively well maintained binaries for
any platforms, please let us know. I don't really see the point in
linking to the 'official distro repos' as the only reason people go to
that page is to either fix the stupid vendor installs, or get more up
to date packages then their distro offers out of the box.
I've added your repo to the list now. In the future, please understand
we have multiple mailinglists for a reason and use the appropriate
list next time around.
-Hannes