From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from wproxy.gmail.com (wproxy.gmail.com [64.233.184.195]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j3PDX1Rr016503 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:33:02 GMT Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 68so1748470wra for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 06:33:08 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=HYoAsQLDqGIK6GaG78fdZEHH4iVwUZy06p6BRX2qHjNUw1a1cJ94o5VKE0tHQ+MQacAOS1FxKqh4BwFHCDfrhaG8iTAsR0oOV/azg4dcOI+yrWxIJesKUA3ml/NnQ72DM+53UtbUx3maRjFi/oWbTUO13qTaT+N3rk8SRA6aHRE= Received: by 10.54.132.1 with SMTP id f1mr1852937wrd; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 06:33:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.8.17 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 06:33:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <30e61698050425063334d003e9@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 15:33:08 +0200 From: Omer Cohen To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: PHP5 Unstable ? In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1130_8832760.1114435988336" References: <30e61698050422051322736ee3@mail.gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: f7bcf95f-7b04-43c3-8e08-8d7cb1476110 X-Archives-Hash: 51216c1c214cb3c89ac074e109012437 ------=_Part_1130_8832760.1114435988336 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline The thing is, that while there's thew newest version (5.0.4) which had=20 all/most of the bugs fixed since 5.0, the original 5.0 version is still=20 being "tested". I think that after 5.0 was released you should have waitied for about a=20 month or so to let people discover bugs like they did, and released=20 patches/updates. 5.0.4 has been stable for quite a while, meaning most of the major things= =20 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: >=20 > Omer Cohen posted <30e61698050422051322736ee3@mail.gmail.com>, excerpted > below, on Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:13:51 +0200: >=20 > > PHP 5.0 was released a long time ago, and alot of fixes and patches wer= e > > released after it to make sure it's sable. > > > > According to PHP.net the stable=20 > 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= =20 > 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= =20 > be > > added and marked stable. > > > > I don't wanna override the system and install it manualy. >=20 > OK, I see a big discussion, but nobody has yet made this point, directly > at least, so here it is... >=20 > I agree that 5.0.4 should at least be in the tree, if upstream is calling > it stable. >=20 > 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 th= e > EBUILD, *NOT* the stability (or lack thereof) of the upstream source. >=20 > 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 alway= s > 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. >=20 > In this instance, >=3Dphp-5.0 on Gentoo is hard masked, not because of wh= at > 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. >=20 > 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 comfortabl= e > 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 sysadmi= n > 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. >=20 > -- > 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 >=20 >=20 > -- > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list >=20 >=20 --=20 Thanks, Omer Cohen www.omerc.net omerc.net@gmail.com ------=_Part_1130_8832760.1114435988336 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline 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 a= re fixed if not all of them.
So atleast add it to the tree, if not stable then atleast masked.

On 4/25/05, Du= ncan <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 <http://php.net/> the stable versions are P= HP 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 be= ing 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, a= nd should be
> added and marked stable.
>
> I don't wanna= override the system and install it manualy.

OK, I see a big discuss= ion, 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 sh= ould 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 aGentoo system, being stable.  Gentoo's keywording, while somewh= at
correlating with upstream in that what upstream has declared a beta o= r RC
is often never arch-stable keyworded on Gentoo, generally serves to
indi= cate the Gentoo ebuild maintainer's evaluation of the stability of the
E= BUILD, *NOT* the stability (or lack thereof) of the upstream source.

Thus, as I said above, yes, the version that upstream calls "stabl= e"
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 becaus= e
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, >=3Dphp-5.0 on Gentoo is hard masked, not because of wha= t
upsteam says, but because (presumably) there have been and remain
unresolved issues with the Gentoo deployment.  Something in Gento= o's
previous deployments conflicts with the current 5.0 layout, and a sm= ooth
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 sy= sadmin 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 sysad= min
is entirely free to package.unmask, or add keywords in an overlay, a= s
appropriate.  That's why the portage system has been designed= with that
flexibility in place, after all -- so it can be used at the d= ecision of
the individual Gentoo user -- aka the local Gentoo system sys= admin.

--
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@gento= o.org mailing list




--
Thanks,
Omer Cohen
www.omerc.net
omerc.net@gmail.com ------=_Part_1130_8832760.1114435988336-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list