Re: Re: PHP License
| From: | Ian Eure | Date: | Wed, 24 Aug 2005 04:30:29 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Re: PHP License | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 | Groups: | php.pear.dev php.pear.qa |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-39526@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Tuesday 23 August 2005 05:46 pm, Joe Stump wrote:
> I agree. I never understood why we used the PHP license over, say,
> the BSD or LGPL (which both fit library level type code a lot better
> IMO). To have the license require distribution of PHP is a little
> odd. What I'm a tad more confused about is why anyone would maintain
> their packages through apt instead of pear.
>
> pear upgrade Package_Name
>
> - or -
>
> pear upgrade-all
>
> Translates about as well as "apt-get install php4-pear-package-name"
> I would think.
>
- Consistency. If there were many packaging systems, the OS as a whole would
be an inconsistent mishmash.
- Security. Debian has a centralized security system, and using a 3rd-party
packaging system on a Debian box defeats that.
- Because Debian Stable should be Debian Stable. PEAR_FooBar 1.0.6 may have a
fix for a security issue or critical bug, but may break in relation to
0.9.0b3 or 1.0.1, as shipped with the last Debian Stable. Upgrading to
PEAR_FooBar 1.0.6 is an unknown quantity, while you know that your packages
will only get BC fixes when upgrading with apt-get.
Attachment: [application/pgp-signature]
Attachment: [application/pgp-signature]