mÃn 2004-12-20 klockan 14:58 -0500 skrev Matt Nuzum: > My point is that upgrading to > a newer PHP is not a satisfactory solution to me and likely others, > because if it were that easy I/we would have already upgraded. Yes. An upgrade to a newer PHP would be easier to create, but since it would probably break some applications it seems like it would be outside the scope of the FL project. It could still be useful for some people, but it should probably be put in a separate repository then. If no-one is willing to create a backwards-compatible security update for FL, then so be it. We all understand that. (But yes, we'll wait and see what Red Hat does with RHEL.) Most users of FL could probably switch to RHEL 2.1 or 3 (or a clone) without major incompatibilities, right? But FL is still useful for many people. For example: I use FL with RHL 9, but I could easily switch to RHEL 3 (or a clone). Yet, I haven't upgraded, because I'm waiting for RHEL 4. In the meantime, FL is useful for me. Another reason for using FL is that you simply haven't had time to switch. Then FL is better than nothing. /abo -- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
