Everything
php
Learn Community Releases The PHP Project
Home » Project » Newsgroups » php.internals » 5 or 6? »

5 or 6?

php.internals

Stanislav Malyshev

19 years ago
I notice that there are a number of places in HEAD where php 5 is still mentioned - some build targets, file names, etc. Is there any reason for it or it's just an omission and eventually only php 6 should be ever mentioned in this branch?
-- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Products Engineer stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/

Jani Taskinen

19 years ago
The whole idea of having that number there is pretty stupid..why not just remove them altogether..? --Jani Stanislav Malyshev kirjoitti:

Stanislav Malyshev

19 years ago
> The whole idea of having that number there is pretty stupid..why not > just remove them altogether..?
Could work too :)
-- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Products Engineer stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/

Antony Dovgal

19 years ago
On 31.05.2007 03:29, Jani Taskinen wrote:
> The whole idea of having that number there is pretty stupid..why not just remove > them altogether..?
Well, in some places it's just not possible, like libphp6.so etc. Other places should be fixed, of course. Actually I have a patch for some SAPIs, just didn't have time to test and commit it.
> Stanislav Malyshev kirjoitti: >> I notice that there are a number of places in HEAD where php 5 is still >> mentioned - some build targets, file names, etc. Is there any reason for >> it or it's just an omission and eventually only php 6 should be ever >> mentioned in this branch? >
-- Wbr, Antony Dovgal

Jani Taskinen

19 years ago
Antony Dovgal kirjoitti:
> On 31.05.2007 03:29, Jani Taskinen wrote: >> The whole idea of having that number there is pretty stupid..why not >> just remove them altogether..? > > Well, in some places it's just not possible, like libphp6.so etc.
You chose just the right example! Now, can you tell why it is necessary? And remember, everything is possible..there is no impossible here, we're having a totally new major version and everything. --Jani

Antony Dovgal

19 years ago
On 31.05.2007 13:04, Jani Taskinen wrote:
> Antony Dovgal kirjoitti: >> On 31.05.2007 03:29, Jani Taskinen wrote: >>> The whole idea of having that number there is pretty stupid..why not >>> just remove them altogether..? >> >> Well, in some places it's just not possible, like libphp6.so etc. > > You chose just the right example! Now, can you tell why it is necessary? > And remember, everything is possible..there is no impossible here, we're > having a totally new major version and everything.
Well, you might want to have both libphp5.so and libphp6.so installed, but only one of them enabled.
-- Wbr, Antony Dovgal

Lukas Kahwe Smith

19 years ago
Antony Dovgal wrote:
> On 31.05.2007 13:04, Jani Taskinen wrote: >> Antony Dovgal kirjoitti: >>> On 31.05.2007 03:29, Jani Taskinen wrote: >>>> The whole idea of having that number there is pretty stupid..why not >>>> just remove them altogether..? >>> >>> Well, in some places it's just not possible, like libphp6.so etc. >> >> You chose just the right example! Now, can you tell why it is necessary? >> And remember, everything is possible..there is no impossible here, we're >> having a totally new major version and everything. > > Well, you might want to have both libphp5.so and libphp6.so installed, > but only one of them enabled.
Why should you be able to do this for two different major versions, but not for arbitrary minor versions or even configurations? regards, Lukas

Antony Dovgal

19 years ago
On 31.05.2007 13:25, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> Antony Dovgal wrote: >> On 31.05.2007 13:04, Jani Taskinen wrote: >>> Antony Dovgal kirjoitti: >>>> On 31.05.2007 03:29, Jani Taskinen wrote: >>>>> The whole idea of having that number there is pretty stupid..why not >>>>> just remove them altogether..? >>>> >>>> Well, in some places it's just not possible, like libphp6.so etc. >>> >>> You chose just the right example! Now, can you tell why it is necessary? >>> And remember, everything is possible..there is no impossible here, we're >>> having a totally new major version and everything. >> >> Well, you might want to have both libphp5.so and libphp6.so installed, >> but only one of them enabled. > > Why should you be able to do this for two different major versions, but > not for arbitrary minor versions or even configurations?
Because this is how it works for years? I do agree that having version number in file names is bad idea, but we need to think it over very good, since I don't like changing a behaviour which existed for ages, even if it looks stupid.
-- Wbr, Antony Dovgal

Jani Taskinen

19 years ago
"worked for years" is just why I said "having a totally new major version"..meaning this is the time to fix the bad practises. For filenames this is no problem at all, you can always rename files yourself if you _really_ need to have different files around. And if you think that this breaks something..well, it doesn't. The old libphp4.so, and libphp5.so aren't changing with this, are they? :D --Jani Antony Dovgal kirjoitti:

Antony Dovgal

19 years ago
On 31.05.2007 13:44, Jani Taskinen wrote:
> "worked for years" is just why I said "having a totally new major > version"..meaning this is the time to fix the bad practises. > For filenames this is no problem at all, you can always rename files > yourself if you _really_ need to have different files around. > > And if you think that this breaks something..well, it doesn't. > The old libphp4.so, and libphp5.so aren't changing with this, are they? :D
Right, but the World Order [tm] does =)
-- Wbr, Antony Dovgal

Stanislav Malyshev

19 years ago
>> And if you think that this breaks something..well, it doesn't. >> The old libphp4.so, and libphp5.so aren't changing with this, are >> they? :D > > Right, but the World Order [tm] does =)
Looking at how Unix shared libs are named customary, there's a considerable part of those bearing major versions in their names (libc6.so, libxml2.so, etc.). So for .so it's probably OK to stay with version. However, that doesn't mean, for example, project files should stay with version - i.e. that there should be files in the repository named php5.* or libphp5.*. Unless of course there's some limitation from the autolools/libtool side. I think windows doesn't have any problem with that anyway, so we could weed out all those php5.dsp etc.
-- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Products Engineer stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/

Nicolas Bérard Nault

19 years ago
If, for exemple, you want to run PHP4 and PHP5 on two different instances of Apache using the same Apache binary (but two different httpd.conf), it's useful to have them named libphp4.so and libphp5.so because `make install' automatically throws the library where apxs tells it to. If the major version number is dropped, not only will it be inconsistent with the previous names, it will also mix things up. My 2 cents. On 5/31/07, Jani Taskinen <jani.taskinen@sci.fi> wrote:
> > "worked for years" is just why I said "having a totally new major > version"..meaning this is the time to fix the bad practises. > For filenames this is no problem at all, you can always rename files > yourself if you _really_ need to have different files around. > > And if you think that this breaks something..well, it doesn't. > The old libphp4.so, and libphp5.so aren't changing with this, are they? :D > > --Jani > > Antony Dovgal kirjoitti: > > On 31.05.2007 13:25, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: > >> Antony Dovgal wrote: > >>> On 31.05.2007 13:04, Jani Taskinen wrote: > >>>> Antony Dovgal kirjoitti: > >>>>> On 31.05.2007 03:29, Jani Taskinen wrote: > >>>>>> The whole idea of having that number there is pretty stupid..why > >>>>>> not just remove them altogether..? > >>>>> > >>>>> Well, in some places it's just not possible, like libphp6.so etc. > >>>> > >>>> You chose just the right example! Now, can you tell why it is > >>>> necessary? > >>>> And remember, everything is possible..there is no impossible here, > >>>> we're > >>>> having a totally new major version and everything. > >>> > >>> Well, you might want to have both libphp5.so and libphp6.so > >>> installed, but only one of them enabled. > >> > >> Why should you be able to do this for two different major versions, > >> but not for arbitrary minor versions or even configurations? > > > > Because this is how it works for years? > > > > I do agree that having version number in file names is bad idea, but we > > need to think it over very good, since I don't like changing a behaviour > > which existed for ages, even if it looks stupid. > > > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
-- Nicolas Bérard-Nault (nicobn@gmail.com) Étudiant D.E.C. Sciences, Lettres & Arts Cégep de Sherbrooke Page personnelle: http://nicobn.googlepages.com

Stefan Walk

19 years ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but for those "just not possible" cases, a single version-constant in the source would suffice, right? So it's at least not inconsistent... Regards, Stefan

Jani Taskinen

19 years ago
This is when I use concept called "rename" when I copy these babies around.. :D And as you knew, it's not possible (anymore) to have both enabled in same apache instance anyway. --Jani Antony Dovgal kirjoitti:

Richard Lynch

19 years ago
On Thu, May 31, 2007 4:04 am, Jani Taskinen wrote:
> Antony Dovgal kirjoitti: >> On 31.05.2007 03:29, Jani Taskinen wrote: >>> The whole idea of having that number there is pretty stupid..why >>> not >>> just remove them altogether..? >> >> Well, in some places it's just not possible, like libphp6.so etc. > > You chose just the right example! Now, can you tell why it is > necessary? > And remember, everything is possible..there is no impossible here, > we're > having a totally new major version and everything.
I'd rather not have my old libphp#.so file over-written when I install a new version, in case things go horribly wrong and I want to just roll-back... But maybe that's just me... There was a time where one could have 2 php mod versions running at once, as I recall, and having different filenames was kinda important, eh?
-- Some people have a "gift" link here. Know what I want? I want you to buy a CD from some indie artist. http://cdbaby.com/browse/from/lynch Yeah, I get a buck. So?

Stanislav Malyshev

19 years ago
> I'd rather not have my old libphp#.so file over-written when I install > a new version, in case things go horribly wrong and I want to just > roll-back...
Then you have the same reason to worry right now - every php5 install from 5.0.0 to 5.2.3 overwrites libphp5.so.
> There was a time where one could have 2 php mod versions running at > once, as I recall, and having different filenames was kinda important, > eh?
Well, there was a setting that kinda allowed that, but I'm not sure it ever worked correctly - there are all sorts of symbol clashes, etc. On the other hand, you can happily run two (or a dozen :) PHP versions right now - just install any FastCGI implementation, compile two cgi-fcgi PHPs and install. Only thing you would need to care about is to give them separate php.ini's and/or separate extension directories.
-- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Products Engineer stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/

Arnold Daniels

19 years ago
Hi, Why isn't the Apache module appended with the same suffix as the other binaries (configuration option --program-suffix). It seems like the logical solution here. That way you can have any different versions if you want, but the default is just the overwrite. Best regards, Arnold Stanislav Malyshev wrote:

Jani Taskinen

19 years ago
Because it's --program-suffix and not --library-suffix. --Jani On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 11:29 +0200, Arnold Daniels wrote:

Arnold Daniels

19 years ago
When you build the Apache2 SAPI the only binary build is the module, so '--program-suffix' is unused. Anyway it doesn't have to be the same configuration option per say (though I don't see why not), but the method of specifying the suffix with configure is much handier than having it hard-coded in source. I've stated the reasons in the previous e-mail. Best regards, Arnold Jani Taskinen wrote:

Jani Taskinen

19 years ago
It's actually not the only binary/script that is build. --program-suffix|prefix affect also phpize, etc. scripts names. And AFAIK, CLI binary is always build unless of course you disable it. :) Patches are welcome. --Jani Arnold Daniels kirjoitti: