Re: [PEAR-QA] Re: [PEAR-DEV] Re: [PEAR-QA] PHP License
On 8/23/05, Ian Eure <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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.
And someone working in Debian is checking all PEAR packages for BC breaks?
Come on now. PEAR packages adhere to BC rules. Any stable package *may
not break BC*. If a new release breaks BC it's a bug and will be fixed
either by the author or the QA team. I honestly don't see how a Debian
maintainer is going to know about and deal with BC problems any better
than the PEAR QA team.