Hi Steph,
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Steph Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Pierre,
>
>
> > and about Attic, the idea behind a graveyard was about leaving the
> > code around for study purposes.
>
> Code in the attic can be read online but can't be checked out, so I take
> your point a
Hi Pierre,
and about Attic, the idea behind a graveyard was about leaving the
code around for study purposes.
Code in the attic can be read online but can't be checked out, so I take
your point about 'study purposes'. I'd use siberia for things like axis2,
where the project is live and hoste
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:39 PM, Steph Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Siberia was meant for dead module with no potential to come back to
> > live.
>
> Not in my eyes. There's only a problem with CVS Attic if you want to bring
> something back to life, so if there's no potential for that - wh
Siberia was meant for dead module with no potential to come back to
live.
Not in my eyes. There's only a problem with CVS Attic if you want to bring
something back to life, so if there's no potential for that - why not use
it?
I can't see how these two can live again as they are under GPL,
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Steph Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 01.04.2008 17:00, Marcus Boerger wrote:
> >>> So - plain old CVS attic or 'siberia' for the GPL'd ones?
> >>
> >> IMO Attic.
> >
> > Yep, attic should be fine.
>
> I agree with you both (consider it done).
> We'll ne
On 01.04.2008 17:00, Marcus Boerger wrote:
So - plain old CVS attic or 'siberia' for the GPL'd ones?
IMO Attic.
Yep, attic should be fine.
I agree with you both (consider it done).
We'll need siberia for modules that have the potential to live again - these
two aren't in that category.
-
On 01.04.2008 17:00, Marcus Boerger wrote:
So - plain old CVS attic or 'siberia' for the GPL'd ones?
IMO Attic.
Yep, attic should be fine.
--
Wbr,
Antony Dovgal
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Hello Steph,
Tuesday, April 1, 2008, 2:50:51 PM, you wrote:
> Hi all,
>> No need to wait, if the code is under GPL and still there, it must be
>> moved out from CVS (both never had a pecl release so it is half of an
>> issue). Let say we can move it as soon as the siberia top level module
>> is
Hi all,
No need to wait, if the code is under GPL and still there, it must be
moved out from CVS (both never had a pecl release so it is half of an
issue). Let say we can move it as soon as the siberia top level module
is in place.
OK, I heard from the muscat author. Both GPL'd extensions can
Hi Philip,
Recently the pecl/muscat documentation was removed from phpdoc CVS. No
horse mouth was involved, but it seemed like a good time.
Just recording this to eliminate the bus factor. For the 'dead extensions'
page in the manual:
The replacement for the PHP interface to the muscat sear
2. I didn't have a response yet regarding pecl/muscat, but it's been
superceded by another GPL'd extension which is sited elswhere
(Xapian). So I guess we're clear there too, I'd just rather have it
from the horse's mouth.
Recently the pecl/muscat documentation was removed from phpdoc CVS.
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Steph Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Pierre,
>
>
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Marcus Boerger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Did we not disallow GPL'd extensions in PECL?
> >
> > We do.
>
> At least one of those extensions was originally move
Hi Pierre,
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Marcus Boerger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Did we not disallow GPL'd extensions in PECL?
We do.
At least one of those extensions was originally moved out of the PHP core
into PECL *because* it was GPL'd. We're mixing old extensions and new rules
Hi Marcus,
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Marcus Boerger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Did we not disallow GPL'd extensions in PECL?
We do.
> If not can we finally require OSI approved licenses only and disallow
> proprietary and GPL specifically?
We do as well:
http://pecl.php.net/accoun
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Marcus Boerger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Did we not disallow GPL'd extensions in PECL?
I though so.
> If not can we finally require OSI approved licenses only and disallow
> proprietary and GPL specifically?
+1
Olivier
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime D
Hi Marcus, boy you're everywhere at once...
Did we not disallow GPL'd extensions in PECL?
If not can we finally require OSI approved licenses only and disallow
proprietary and GPL specifically?
Update: I've written to the authors of both the GPL'd extensions and
daffodildb (proprietary licen
Hello Steph,
Monday, March 31, 2008, 1:02:46 PM, you wrote:
> OK, so I just put in 140-something module updates... manually, grumble. I
> (hopefully) avoided anything in core, whether that be PHP 4 or 5 - the way
> we version core modules is going to need much more thought.
> Apart from those,
OK, so I just put in 140-something module updates... manually, grumble. I
(hopefully) avoided anything in core, whether that be PHP 4 or 5 - the way
we version core modules is going to need much more thought.
Apart from those, here's a list of the PECL extensions I can't or won't
touch. It see
18 matches
Mail list logo
