Hello,
[ copious cross-posting stripped ]
On Fri, 27.10.2006 at 19:11:32 +0200, Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-10-27 19:07]:
> > Todd T. Fries wrote:
> > >I definately agree with those previously stating that not all php code
> > >supports php
Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We can wait forever, but PHP4 is not really maintained anymore, do you
> realise this? It puts servers at risk, unnecessary, I'd say.
Yes, it is maintained. It just like -stable, it gets security fixes, but
doesn't get new features added. Its no more o
* Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-10-27 19:07]:
> Todd T. Fries wrote:
>
> >I definately agree with those previously stating that not all php code
> >supports php5 yet.
>
> disconnecting php4 will help them speed up the transition.
bullshit.
it leads to pplz building from source, thus hav
Todd T. Fries wrote:
I definately agree with those previously stating that not all php code
supports php5 yet.
disconnecting php4 will help them speed up the transition.
phpBB.com states 'running phpBB 2.0.x with PHP5 is not supported'
phpBB is notorious for security problems of all kinds
I definately agree with those previously stating that not all php code
supports php5 yet.
phpBB.com states 'running phpBB 2.0.x with PHP5 is not supported'
.. though there is evidence in their changelogs that they are working on
support for php5.
This is definately not the only codebase in the
--- STeve Andre' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 21 October 2006 21:06, Adam wrote:
> > "STeve Andre'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > PHP5 fixed how many problems over PHP4?
> >
> > None?
> >
> > > People should be using 5, so this is the right thing to do.
> >
> > People "should be u
"STeve Andre'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 21 October 2006 21:06, Adam wrote:
> > "STeve Andre'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > PHP5 fixed how many problems over PHP4?
> >
> > None?
> >
> > > People should be using 5, so this is the right thing to do.
> >
> > People "should be using
On Saturday 21 October 2006 21:06, Adam wrote:
> "STeve Andre'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > PHP5 fixed how many problems over PHP4?
>
> None?
>
> > People should be using 5, so this is the right thing to do.
>
> People "should be using" whatever they need. And some people need
> PHP4. There is
"STeve Andre'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> PHP5 fixed how many problems over PHP4?
None?
> People should be using 5, so this is the right thing to do.
People "should be using" whatever they need. And some people need
PHP4. There is no reason for them to upgrade to 5, so for the people
who ha
On Saturday 21 October 2006 13:29, Robert Nagy wrote:
> Hi.
>
> A couple of us thing that people should switch to php5
> because the php4 ports is not going to be updated.
> Everything in the ports tree uses php5 now and we do not
> see any reasons to ship whit it.
>
> It is possible that a lot of
Hi.
A couple of us thing that people should switch to php5
because the php4 ports is not going to be updated.
Everything in the ports tree uses php5 now and we do not
see any reasons to ship whit it.
It is possible that a lot of people are relying on php4
so we are still going to keep it in the t
11 matches
Mail list logo