While at least part of the answer is 'it's not our problem', in general Linux
distributions provide a modular approach to managing installations. The various
comments about version numbers prompts me to remember the hassle that was
incurred when I tried to switch distributions because there is no standard way
of handling this. I'd like to float the idea of providing a standardised way of
handling a more modular approach to handling this for PHP6. The main part
relates to breaking down the ever expanding central .ini file so that each
extension has it's own ini file as is done by the distributions I'm currently
using.
Moving on from this is adding the ability to update a single module, such as the
timezone data, where an external update can be more easily applied between
releases. I'm actually looking at the problems of maintaining PHP5.3 when it
gets EOL and which 5.2 currently has in relation to timezone data. 'Not our
problem' I know, but providing the right tools would reduce workload if third
parties can more easily take over that work.
The main focus here though is to more easily allow 'development' versions of
extension improvements to be used in the field, rather than having a fully
bundled update? In the past maintaining the windows installations has been by
just updating a single extension, and formalising that still makes sense to me
although I know that many of you prefer the 'core bundle' model which includes
many packages that never actually get used by some of us. A modular model is
used by the Linux distributions and seems to be preferred anyway?
--
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 Lester,
The main focus here though is to more easily allow 'development' versions
of extension improvements to be used in the field, rather than having a
fully bundled update? In the past maintaining the windows installations has
been by just updating a single extension, and formalising that still makes
sense to me although I know that many of you prefer the 'core bundle' model
which includes many packages that never actually get used by some of us. A
modular model is used by the Linux distributions and seems to be preferred
anyway?
I like the idea overall.
We may have php-src/ext/ as standard module that distributors must
compile statically (or should be loaded by default) and
php-src/bundled-ext/
as optional modules that may be loaded optionally.
We may include well maintained/mature PECL modules php-src/bundled-ext/
and bundled/ext may have it's own web pages for newer releases.
However, I also like the current way of distributing module as PHP package,
since I can assume capability of modules by PHP version and all I have to do
is PHP version check rather than each modules version check. It may be time
to forget about this, though.
Current way is reasonable to avoid dependency hell that other languages
have.
Convenience depends on users' usage. IMO.
Regards,
--
Yasuo Ohgaki
yohgaki@ohgaki.net