Re: [PHP] Re: What PHP version are you using?
On Wed, 2009-11-04 at 14:37 +, Nathan Rixham wrote: > Israel Ekpo wrote: > > Hi Guys, > > > > I just want to conduct a quick survey to find out what version of PHP people > > are using in their production environments. > > > > I have a PHP extension for Solr that I have set the minimum required version > > as 5.2.11. > > > > http://pecl.php.net/package/solr/ > > > > However, most of the PHP users that want to use it are unable to do so > > because the PHP version in the PROD environments is below 5.2.11 > > > > They are also nervous about upgrading to newer versions as it will require > > some regression testing. > > > > In my production environment I am using 5.3.0 and most of the people that I > > have contacted seems to be running 5.2.10 > > > > When I released the extension, I did all my regression tests against PHP > > 5.2.11 and now I am considering doing regression tests against 5.2.4 > > (released 30 August 2007) and newer versions so that I can set the minimum > > required version to 5.2.4 in order to accommodate more people. > > > > I cannot go below 5.2.0 though but I am thinking about starting at 5.2.4 and > > newer. > > > > I would really appreciate some feedback as it will be useful in helping me > > determine which PHP version numbers to do my regression tests against. > > > > Thanks. > > > > PHP 5.2.4-2 on most production boxes > mixed 5.1.6, 5.2 and 5.3's in dev environments > > + interesting release; wish I'd known spent part of the first week in > october doing a SOLR integration in PHP *sigh* - on to virtuoso now > > 5.2.9 on my home laptop and main box (used for devel) 4.4.7 on my own site (stupid hosting company are useless!) and a mix of 5.x's on the sites I develop Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
RE: [PHP] Re: What PHP version are you using?
From: Lester Caine > Israel Ekpo wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 2:15 PM, John Black 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. I agree that stability is good, but at some point reality must enter the picture. Continuing to distribute an obsolete package that is no longer supported nor maintained is not good for anyone, least of all the users of those systems. First, the distribution must also include the obsolete documentation to match the versions it includes, since that is no longer available elsewhere and is difficult to identify when it does. In addition, newer features are assumed by many of the other tools, frameworks and applications that are used on or with those systems, none of which are likely to work with these old versions. In our case we require our hosting service to install 5.2.10, which costs us extra in both time and money. But several of the other third party components used with our applications assume the availability of features in that release. They simply won't work with older versions. That minimum is reviewed every time we consider adding new capabilities to our systems, which generally happens every other month. We already have developers looking forward to 5.3 and drooling over the possibilities. I'm just happy that we will finally rid ourselves of some of the magic "features". Bob McConnell -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: What PHP version are you using?
Israel Ekpo wrote: On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 2:15 PM, John Black 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
Re: [PHP] Re: What PHP version are you using?
Israel Ekpo wrote: 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. I posted the current RHEL version because, personally, I would look at the latest release of one of the biggest Enterprise class Linux vendors before deciding on a PHP version. The larger distros only tend to upgrade packages when required because other packages need them or when a security issues has been discovered. Other times they will patch in security fixes applied to packages. The tradeoff here is that you get something older but the system you receive is solid. I run ARCH Linux on my home system because I like to test the latest releases BUT I want stable software on my servers. -- John They hurt you at home and they hit you at school, They hate you if you're clever and they despise a fool, Till you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules... [John Lennon] -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: What PHP version are you using?
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 2:15 PM, John Black 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. > > -- > John > Define: Ubuntard => The drivel this guy spews is inane and forgettable > stuff, characterized by comments that treat Ubuntu as if it is the only > distribution in existence. > > > -- > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > 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. -- "Good Enough" is not good enough. To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift. Quality First. Measure Twice. Cut Once.
Re: [PHP] Re: What PHP version are you using?
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. -- John Define: Ubuntard => The drivel this guy spews is inane and forgettable stuff, characterized by comments that treat Ubuntu as if it is the only distribution in existence. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] Re: What PHP version are you using?
From: John Black > Israel Ekpo wrote: >> I just finishing testing against 5.2.10 down to 5.2.4. I am not sure how >> many people are still using versions between 5.2.0 and 5.2.3 >> I would like to know those ones too > > Well anybody running CentOS 5 or RedHat Linux Enterprise 5 using the > official repo will be using PHP 5.1.x so you might want to thing twice > about going any higher then that. 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. Bob McConnell -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: What PHP version are you using?
Israel Ekpo wrote: I just finishing testing against 5.2.10 down to 5.2.4. I am not sure how many people are still using versions between 5.2.0 and 5.2.3 I would like to know those ones too Well anybody running CentOS 5 or RedHat Linux Enterprise 5 using the official repo will be using PHP 5.1.x so you might want to thing twice about going any higher then that. -- John Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. [Friedrich Nietzsche] -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: What PHP version are you using?
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Israel Ekpo wrote: > On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 12:21 PM, O. Lavell wrote: > > > Israel Ekpo wrote: > > > > > Hi Guys, > > > > > > I just want to conduct a quick survey to find out what version of PHP > > > people are using in their production environments. > > > > A few days late to answer perhaps, but in case you still want another > > reply: I use 5.2.6, the version that comes with Debian "Lenny". I do not > > usually install anything from outside the official Debian archives, makes > > my life much easier this way. > > > > [..] > > > > > I cannot go below 5.2.0 though but I am thinking about starting at > 5.2.4 > > > and newer. > > > > That would make sense for us Debian users at least, as explained above. > > Other distros I'm not sure about. > > > > -- > > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > > > Thanks. > > I am still looking for responses. So you are not late. > > I just finishing testing against 5.2.10 down to 5.2.4. I am not sure how > many people are still using versions between 5.2.0 and 5.2.3 > > I would like to know those ones too > > -- > "Good Enough" is not good enough. > To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift. > Quality First. Measure Twice. Cut Once. > Hi! I develop for 4.3.10 and 5.2.6 at work. At home I use 5.2.9, it was installed by xubuntu Our hosting providers have 5.2.0 or 5.2.4 -- Martin Scotta
Re: [PHP] Re: What PHP version are you using?
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 12:21 PM, O. Lavell wrote: > Israel Ekpo wrote: > > > Hi Guys, > > > > I just want to conduct a quick survey to find out what version of PHP > > people are using in their production environments. > > A few days late to answer perhaps, but in case you still want another > reply: I use 5.2.6, the version that comes with Debian "Lenny". I do not > usually install anything from outside the official Debian archives, makes > my life much easier this way. > > [..] > > > I cannot go below 5.2.0 though but I am thinking about starting at 5.2.4 > > and newer. > > That would make sense for us Debian users at least, as explained above. > Other distros I'm not sure about. > > -- > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > Thanks. I am still looking for responses. So you are not late. I just finishing testing against 5.2.10 down to 5.2.4. I am not sure how many people are still using versions between 5.2.0 and 5.2.3 I would like to know those ones too -- "Good Enough" is not good enough. To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift. Quality First. Measure Twice. Cut Once.
