So this then means bundling more extensions by default and / or better marketing.
What is the issue with simply not bundling all known-to-be-good/stable/current extensions? Admittedly, file size would be up. But I don't really see that as an issue. As a windows user, I would just want them all as part of the ZIP file. Sort of "If the extension comes from the same archive as the PHP core, then it must be ok!" mentality. On 24/07/06, Marco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would a security issue now be present if users could modify their own > .htaccess files to include potentially rogue (and not rouge as I first > wrote!) extensions - is this any different to using dl() (where is it > supported)? I guess using dl() wouldnt be any different to using a .htaccess file to include new modules. AFAIK most shared hosts disable the use of dl() on their hosting accounts so maybe the .htaccess idea isnt as good as I first thought :) Although a number of shared hosts I have spoken to in the past have refused to install a simple extension into their php installation as they didnt know what affect it would have on the other 200 customers sharing the server. Regards Marco
-- ----- Richard Quadling Zend Certified Engineer : http://zend.com/zce.php?c=ZEND002498&r=213474731 "Standing on the shoulders of some very clever giants!" -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
