The thing is, that while there's thew newest version (5.0.4) which had all/most of the bugs fixed since 5.0, the original 5.0 version is still being "tested". I think that after 5.0 was released you should have waitied for about a month or so to let people discover bugs like they did, and released patches/updates. 5.0.4 has been stable for quite a while, meaning most of the major things are fixed if not all of them. So atleast add it to the tree, if not stable then atleast masked. On 4/25/05, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote: > > Omer Cohen posted <30e61698050422051322736ee3@mail.gmail.com>, excerpted > below, on Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:13:51 +0200: > > > PHP 5.0 was released a long time ago, and alot of fixes and patches were > > released after it to make sure it's sable. > > > > According to PHP.net the stable > versions are PHP 5.0.4 && > > 4.3.11 > > 4.3.11 is marked stable, but 5.0.4 dosn't even exist on the tree. > > > > 5.0.0 isn't marked at all, and everything till 5.0.3-r2 is marked are > hard > > masked and still being tested. > > > > It's been like this for a long time now. > > > > As a PHP developer I believe that 5.0.4 is more then stable, and should > be > > added and marked stable. > > > > I don't wanna override the system and install it manualy. > > OK, I see a big discussion, but nobody has yet made this point, directly > at least, so here it is... > > I agree that 5.0.4 should at least be in the tree, if upstream is calling > it stable. > > The point that should be emphasized, however, is that there's a /big/ > difference between the upstream application being "stable", and Gentoo's > particular instance, that is, the ebuild script that merges it onto a > Gentoo system, being stable. Gentoo's keywording, while somewhat > correlating with upstream in that what upstream has declared a beta or RC > is often never arch-stable keyworded on Gentoo, generally serves to > indicate the Gentoo ebuild maintainer's evaluation of the stability of the > EBUILD, *NOT* the stability (or lack thereof) of the upstream source. > > Thus, as I said above, yes, the version that upstream calls "stable" > should reasonably be expected to be in the portage tree in some form > within a reasonable (few week, often less) time, however, one can't always > expect that said portage tree version will be marked stable just because > upstream defines that particular version of their product as stable, > because the status of the Gentoo instance of it, the ebuild, may itself > not be stable, on one or more archs, possibly on all of them. > > In this instance, >=php-5.0 on Gentoo is hard masked, not because of what > upsteam says, but because (presumably) there have been and remain > unresolved issues with the Gentoo deployment. Something in Gentoo's > previous deployments conflicts with the current 5.0 layout, and a smooth > transition hasn't yet been worked out and fully tested, so the 5.x series > remains hard masked. > > Ignoring for the moment the issue of the 5.0.4 upstream-stable version > itself not being in the tree at all, if a sysadmin is suitably comfortable > with php-5.x, and either understands the issues keeping it masked on > Gentoo and knows they don't apply in his case or at least is willing to > extend the effort to work around any issues that may appear, said sysadmin > is entirely free to package.unmask, or add keywords in an overlay, as > appropriate. That's why the portage system has been designed with that > flexibility in place, after all -- so it can be used at the decision of > the individual Gentoo user -- aka the local Gentoo system sysadmin. > > -- > Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. > "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- > and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in > http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html > > > -- > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list > > -- Thanks, Omer Cohen www.omerc.net omerc.net@gmail.com