[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [PEAR-DEV] Re: [PEAR-QA] PHP License

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.

Attachment: pgpq2LS47awp9.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: