2010/7/26 John Hinton <webmaster@xxxxxxxx>:
> On 7/26/2010 9:38 AM, John R Pierce wrote:
>> On 07/26/10 12:04 AM, Bob Hoffman wrote:
>>
>>> Thinking of just sitting on this for awhile? Thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Last release for PHP 5.2& updates for 5.3
>>>
>>> PHP Logo The users of PHP 5.2 should upgrade to 5.3 at their earliest
>>> convenience, as the active support of the 5.2 series came to an end with the
>>> release of version 5.2.14 earlier today. PHP 5.2.0 was released almost four
>>> years ago and according to the release announcement,
>>> http://www.php.net/archive/2010.php#id2010-07-22-1
>>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>> sounds like a great reason to get away from using PHP entirely, since
>> they seem to be incapable of releasing upgrades that don't massively
>> break applications. 4 years is just too short of a life cycle for a
>> major release used in a production system.
>>
>>
> Always a dilemma. The very beauty of upstream therefore CentOS is that
> security issues will be backported to our current installations. In a
> hosting environment, you don't have to worry about breaking people's php
> websites/apps. The downside is the long lived old php versions do not
> run many of the new apps those same hosted clients wish to run. But in
> most cases, it's those same clients that build something and expect it
> to run forever and get very upset when they are told they must
> upgrade/rewrite their scripts.
>
> Of note. I did a 5.2 upgrade on one of our local use systems. I don't
> know how much more is broken, but for certain the standard CentOS
> install of SquirrelMail is borked. We don't use it on that system, so no
> big deal. I thought I'd post this just so those with mission critical
> machines would know that upgrading PHP does have an effect on at least
> this one upstream package. I can only assume if one looked deep enough,
> some other things may be broken as well. It really is hard to test
> 'everything' that a client may be using.
>
> To me, the fact that PHP seems to have a 4 year life cycle, further
> strengthens the use of CentOS with its 7 year life cycle. Yes, it is an
> inconvenience from time to time. We don't get to count how many times it
> is a convenience however. You only hear when it doesn't or can't work,
> not how many times something continues to work due to this mindset.
Well, mainly problem is that rhel/centos is shipping so old php
version and mysql.
and "lack" of reliable source for newer versions for production.. I
hope rhel 6/centos 6 fixes this problem also..
--
Eero
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
