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

Moving forward with php



hey,

(note that i'm cc'ing this to debian-webapps, to get a slightly wider
audience for some of the issues)


so, now that the die is pretty much cast for php in etch, and modulo the
MOPB things are fairly stable, so let's start talking about the future.
below is a random collection of stuff that i'd like to bring up for
discussion.


-- php4 --

first things first, i want to bring up the topic of dropping php4.  i've
been putting off bringing this up for quite a while, and in the meantime
it seems the folks in ubuntu have gone through a similar thought process
and php4 is removed from feisty.

i'm not saying we need to do this now, but i think it would be in our
best interests to have it removed before lenny is released, and want to
get people at least thinking about it now.


-- new upstream versions --

for those who haven't been paying close attention, we've already had to
branch off for etch due to unrelated issues (with libgd2 iirc), so
there's nothing holding us back from getting the latest and greatest
from upstream.

unless someone beats me to it, i'll probably do this over the weekend.


-- pear, pecl, and php policy --

afaik the pear/pecl situation is still really messy wrt debian php
library/extension packages vs locally installed extensions.  it's been
so long that i don't even remember what was recommended in the php
policy draft, nor do i remember what was and was not implemented.

this needs revisiting, and ideally some consensus/reminders on what
needs to be done.


-- misc packaging details --

does anyone mind if i drop the home-rolled patch system in favor of
something a little more useful?  i've heard a lot of good talk about
quilt lately and would be interested in trying that out, but if there
are strongly formed opinions for using dpatch or something else (or
nothing else) i'm open to hearing them.


-- anything else ? --



	sean

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: