On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Sebastian Nohn wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Sebastian Nohn wrote: > > > > > > > This note from Derick pretty much reflects the idea... it > > > > > makes sense: > > > > > <quote> > > > > > I see that renaming the CGI to php-cgi might break things > > > > > indeed, and that's never a good idea. But so is changing the > > > > > name of the CLI (php) to something else. It also breaks > > > > > things, not only for me, but also for countless others using > > > > > the CLI with the name 'php'. We also need to think about these > > > > > users as well. This leaves my opinion that i'm -1 on renaming > > > > > the CLI to something else, and i'm a -0 (yes this changed :) > > > > > on renaming the CGI. This leaves the (IMO) only possible > > > > > solution: integrate them back into one binary and adding some > > > > > magic which triggers CLI or CGI mode (perhaps to check for > > > > > some environment variable). > > > > > </quote> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hrmm, how does renaming php-cli break compatibility between PHP > > > > _releases_? > > > > > > In no way! PHP-CLI always was marked as experimental. > > > > And that means you can piss of users as you see fit? > > I think a lot more users will be pissed of when renaming php to > php-cgi than regarding to the cli-version of php as php-cli or phpsh > or anything else.
I didn't say that it should be changed from php to php-cgi, as I do think that would be bad. Derick -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Derick Rethans http://derickrethans.nl/ PHP Magazine - PHP Magazine for Professionals http://php-mag.net/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
