On Tuesday 23 August 2005 05:46 pm, Joe Stump wrote: > I agree. I never understood why we used the PHP license over, say, > the BSD or LGPL (which both fit library level type code a lot better > IMO). To have the license require distribution of PHP is a little > odd. What I'm a tad more confused about is why anyone would maintain > their packages through apt instead of pear. > > pear upgrade Package_Name > > - or - > > pear upgrade-all > > Translates about as well as "apt-get install php4-pear-package-name" > I would think. > - Consistency. If there were many packaging systems, the OS as a whole would be an inconsistent mishmash. - Security. Debian has a centralized security system, and using a 3rd-party packaging system on a Debian box defeats that. - Because Debian Stable should be Debian Stable. PEAR_FooBar 1.0.6 may have a fix for a security issue or critical bug, but may break in relation to 0.9.0b3 or 1.0.1, as shipped with the last Debian Stable. Upgrading to PEAR_FooBar 1.0.6 is an unknown quantity, while you know that your packages will only get BC fixes when upgrading with apt-get.
Description: PGP signature