Israel Ekpo wrote:
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 2:15 PM, John Black <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
Bob McConnell wrote:
I just checked the Red Hat 5.4 manifest and it shows php-5.1.6-23.el5 -
php-5.1.6-23.2.el5_3. CentOS simply repackages the Red Hat kit without
the proprietary bits. I don't understand why they are so far behind on a
build that was just released last month, but our hosting service only
provides what's in the official release.
I just check the CentOS repo and the repo lists
php-5.1.6-23.2.el5_3.x86_64.rpm as latest.
So CentOS is as upto date as RedHat, the way it should be.
That is not good.
5.1.6 was released in August 2006.
More than 3 years ago. There are a lot of bug fixes since then
http://www.php.net/ChangeLog-5.php
It looks like the php libraries are not maintained in CentOS and Red Hat
Repositories.
There are very good reasons why a 'long time supported' build does not
keep replacing packages all the time. It is gauranteed NOT to change
them, so compatibility problems introduced by PHP such as the 'date'
problem will not come up and bit ANY of their customers.
I believe that there is a new version due on a couple of 'long time
supported' distributions, but the current 'instability' with PHP5.3
potentially requiring changes to deployed applications is the sort of
thing that these builds are supposed to avoid. I'll be staying with
5.2.x for a while simply because I know that is stable with my current
code base.
So it IS good that a stable and understood build of PHP is used as no
one would gaurantee that later builds will not introduce problems -
especially following a change of minor versions.
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
