On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Joe Orton wrote: > On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 08:58:47AM -0700, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > I think many people rely heavily on the packages maintained by the > > various Linux distributions. A binary compatibility break is a burden > > on the maintainers of these packages, but beyond needing to update every > > PHP package, the end user really isn't burdened by it in any way unless > > they have their own custom extensions, or if they have pecl extensions > > installed, they'll need to grab them again from pecl and build against > > the new dev files. > > > > If the cost of fixing this is purely on us and a handful of distribution > > maintainers with minimal cost to the end users, then I think the choice > > should be simple here. Asking Joe Orton and the various other package > > maintainers from the major distros might be a good idea too. > > I think it's fair to say we would not ship a php update for Fedora Core > 3 (and certainly not for RHEL) which broke third-party module > compability unless it was a for a really critical issue i.e. remotely > exploitable security bug. I'm not sure this bug qualifies, given that > it can be worked around.
Actually, I don't think it can be worked around. Perhaps technically, but not practically. Derick -- Derick Rethans http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
