Re: Anyone against requiring libxml2 2.6.x for PHP5.1?

On Feb 15, 2005, at 00:53, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:

Ryan King wrote:

On Feb 14, 2005, at 9:26 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:

D.Walsh wrote:

On Feb 14, 2005, at 23:49, Adam Maccabee Trachtenberg wrote:

Well, that's below 2.5.11, which is what we currently require, so those folks are already out of luck. Meanwhile, Mac OS 10.4 is at 2.6.16, so that's okay. I don't have a 10.3 machine with me here at LinuxWorld, so I can't check that.

OSX 10.3 is at 2.5.4

At the same time, why would people on older operating systems who are obviously quite conservative when it comes to upgrading suddenly try to upgrade to the very latest PHP? As long as we don't move the goalposts beyond the latest releases of the various main operating systems I think we are fine.

I completely agree with what you're saying here. The only problem is that 10.3 is the current version of Mac OS X. 10.4 won't be out until at least late March.

OSX 10.3.8 is the current version and it has libxml 2.6.7 -Rasmus

libxzml2 is a rather simple install so upgrading it in the Mac world is a simple build however, those dependent on RPM's, perhaps you should consider something that is more commonly found. I also understand that sometimes, dependent requirements force the need to update based on functionality and if the libxml2 update requirement is based on a function need not found in earlier version or fixes a serious bug then I concur, force the requirement, if it's based on preference, IMHO, it would be foolish to force someone to upgrade when it is not a necessity. -- Dale