PHP 5.3: IUS vs CentOS repos
 

I need to upgrade PHP because the latest WordPress requires one at least at
5.2.4. What are the tradeoffs of using the php53 packages provided by
CentOS versus IUS? I've seen that installing the RHEL-derived php53
requires removing php first and it creates package conflicts because it
doesn't provide a virtual php-common package. That suggests I should
install the IUS package. Is there any reason to avoid IUS and stay with the
CentOS package?

<http://www.bytebot.net/blog/archives/2011/07/24/updating-php-in-rhelcentos-5-6-for-wordpress-3-2>

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

PHP 5.3: IUS vs CentOS repos
 

On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 09:54:56PM -0700, Kenneth Porter wrote:
> install the IUS package. Is there any reason to avoid IUS and stay with the
> CentOS package?

No, not really.

TUV broke php53 and it won't be fixed in any useful timeframe; IUS'
packages are sane, well maintained and used by Rackspace for their own
customers.

I wouldn't use the TUV php53 for any reason the way things stand.





John

--
If you always do what interests you, at least one person is pleased.

-- Katharine Hepburn (1907-2003), American actress, writer
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

PHP 5.3: IUS vs CentOS repos
 

On 19 August 2011 06:22, John R. Dennison <jrd@gerdesas.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 09:54:56PM -0700, Kenneth Porter wrote:
>> install the IUS package. Is there any reason to avoid IUS and stay with the
>> CentOS package?
>
> No, not really.
>
> TUV broke php53 and it won't be fixed in any useful timeframe; IUS'
> packages are sane, well maintained and used by Rackspace for their own
> customers.
>
> I wouldn't use the TUV php53 for any reason the way things stand.
>

+1
especially if you need mcrypt
we have switched production servers to ius after having fought with
the native offering

mike
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

PHP 5.3: IUS vs CentOS repos
 

On 08/19/2011 07:22 AM, John R. Dennison wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 09:54:56PM -0700, Kenneth Porter wrote:
>> install the IUS package. Is there any reason to avoid IUS and stay with the
>> CentOS package?
>
> No, not really.
>
> TUV broke php53 and it won't be fixed in any useful timeframe; IUS'
> packages are sane, well maintained and used by Rackspace for their own
> customers.
>
> I wouldn't use the TUV php53 for any reason the way things stand.

In what way did TUV break php?

Regards,
Dennis
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

PHP 5.3: IUS vs CentOS repos
 

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 04:25:28PM +0200, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
>
> In what way did TUV break php?

The package supplies "php53" and not "php" - while this may arguably be
correct in some situations it is not the case across the board and
causes dep issues with some packaged php scripts. There is also no
"mcrypt" support in the php53 packages.

There are other issues as well but these are the two big show-stoppers.




John
--
Sometimes a man wants to be stupid if it lets him do a thing his cleverness
forbids.

-- John Steinbeck (1902-1968), novelist, Nobel laureate, East of Eden, 1952
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

PHP 5.3: IUS vs CentOS repos
 

On 08/19/11 10:51 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 04:25:28PM +0200, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
>> In what way did TUV break php?
> The package supplies "php53" and not "php" - while this may arguably be
> correct in some situations it is not the case across the board and
> causes dep issues with some packaged php scripts.

the postgres updates managed to solve similar problems by providing a
compat-postgresql-libs package which satisfies dependencies for earlier
versions.

perhaps something like this could act as a glue between php and php53



--
john r pierce N 37, W 122
santa cruz ca mid-left coast

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

PHP 5.3: IUS vs CentOS repos
 

At Sat, 20 Aug 2011 00:16:02 -0700 CentOS mailing list <centos@centos.org> wrote:

>
> On 08/19/11 10:51 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 04:25:28PM +0200, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
> >> In what way did TUV break php?
> > The package supplies "php53" and not "php" - while this may arguably be
> > correct in some situations it is not the case across the board and
> > causes dep issues with some packaged php scripts.
>
> the postgres updates managed to solve similar problems by providing a
> compat-postgresql-libs package which satisfies dependencies for earlier
> versions.
>
> perhaps something like this could act as a glue between php and php53

Different issues. php53 *replaces* php. I did this on both a A CentOS
4 and two CentOS 5 machines. Mostly painless -- just needed to

'yum remove php...'

THEN

'yum install php53...'

(I did some magic with rpm -qa php* & sed to get the proper list of
stuff to remove and then install.)

I did need to rebuild one package from a source RPM on one machine (and
I ended up not needing it after all -- the code that need it 'evolved' in
a different direction).

>
> >

--
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 / heller@deepsoft.com
Deepwoods Software -- http://www.deepsoft.com/
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments



_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

PHP 5.3: IUS vs CentOS repos
 

On Sat, 2011-08-20 at 07:43 -0400, Robert Heller wrote:

> (I did some magic with rpm -qa php* & sed to get the proper list of
> stuff to remove and then install.)

One does not require the '

Server 6 : rpm -qa php*
php-pdo-5.1.6-27.el5_5.3
php-mbstring-5.1.6-27.el5_5.3
php-cli-5.1.6-27.el5_5.3
php-mcrypt-5.1.6-15.el5.centos.1
php-common-5.1.6-27.el5_5.3
php-mysql-5.1.6-27.el5_5.3
php-5.1.6-27.el5_5.3
phpmyadmin-2.11.11.3-2.el5.rf
Server 6 : rpm -qa php*
php-pdo-5.1.6-27.el5_5.3
php-mbstring-5.1.6-27.el5_5.3
php-cli-5.1.6-27.el5_5.3
php-mcrypt-5.1.6-15.el5.centos.1
php-common-5.1.6-27.el5_5.3
php-mysql-5.1.6-27.el5_5.3
php-5.1.6-27.el5_5.3
phpmyadmin-2.11.11.3-2.el5.rf
Server 6 :



--
With best regards,

Paul.
England,
EU.


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

PHP 5.3: IUS vs CentOS repos
 

On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 01:49:12PM +0100, Always Learning wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2011-08-20 at 07:43 -0400, Robert Heller wrote:
>
> > (I did some magic with rpm -qa php* & sed to get the proper list of
> > stuff to remove and then install.)
>
> One does not require the '

Yes you do. Especially if there are any files in the directory that would
match php*. Basically the shell will attempt to do glob expansion on php*
(so if you have php.ini and php.conf in the directory then it'll expand
to those). Only if no files match will it leave the php* as php*.

So general good practice is to _always_ quote * (and ?) characters on
command lines. You can either the character or put the whole thing
inside '

eg
rpm -qa 'php*'
or
rpm -qa php*

But
rpm -qa php*
is considered bad and _may_ break and should not be used. It's just bad
practice.

Watch:
$ ls
$

So an empty directory. We'd expect the command to work...
$ rpm -qa php*
php-mbstring-5.1.6-27.el5_5.3
php-common-5.1.6-27.el5_5.3
php-cli-5.1.6-27.el5_5.3
php-5.1.6-27.el5_5.3

Yup! So far so good. Now let's create some random files...
$ touch php.foobar php.ini php.baz
$ rpm -qa php*
$

Huh, no results. Let's debug...
$ set -x
$ rpm -qa php*
+ rpm -qa php.baz php.foobar php.ini
$

You can see the shell has done what I described; php* has been expanded
(since it's a file glob) to the files in the directory that matched

Quoting solves the problem:
$ rpm -qa php*
+ rpm -qa 'php*'
php-mbstring-5.1.6-27.el5_5.3
php-common-5.1.6-27.el5_5.3
php-cli-5.1.6-27.el5_5.3
php-5.1.6-27.el5_5.3

(Debug mode was still on, so you can see how the shell handled it).

Conclusion: when using * (or ?) on the command line, ALWAYS quote it to
avoid unexpected side effects.

--

rgds
Stephen
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

PHP 5.3: IUS vs CentOS repos
 

On Sat, 2011-08-20 at 09:02 -0400, Stephen Harris wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 01:49:12PM +0100, Always Learning wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 2011-08-20 at 07:43 -0400, Robert Heller wrote:
> >
> > > (I did some magic with rpm -qa php* & sed to get the proper list of
> > > stuff to remove and then install.)
> >
> > One does not require the '
>
> Yes you do. Especially if there are any files in the directory that would
> match php*. Basically the shell will attempt to do glob expansion on php*
> (so if you have php.ini and php.conf in the directory then it'll expand
> to those). Only if no files match will it leave the php* as php*.
>
> So general good practice is to _always_ quote * (and ?) characters on
> command lines. You can either the character or put the whole thing
> inside '
>
> eg
> rpm -qa 'php*'
> or
> rpm -qa php*
>
> But
> rpm -qa php*
> is considered bad and _may_ break and should not be used. It's just bad
> practice.
>
> Watch:
> $ ls
> $
>
> So an empty directory. We'd expect the command to work...
> $ rpm -qa php*
> php-mbstring-5.1.6-27.el5_5.3
> php-common-5.1.6-27.el5_5.3
> php-cli-5.1.6-27.el5_5.3
> php-5.1.6-27.el5_5.3
>
> Yup! So far so good. Now let's create some random files...
> $ touch php.foobar php.ini php.baz
> $ rpm -qa php*
> $
>
> Huh, no results. Let's debug...
> $ set -x
> $ rpm -qa php*
> + rpm -qa php.baz php.foobar php.ini
> $
>
> You can see the shell has done what I described; php* has been expanded
> (since it's a file glob) to the files in the directory that matched
>
> Quoting solves the problem:
> $ rpm -qa php*
> + rpm -qa 'php*'
> php-mbstring-5.1.6-27.el5_5.3
> php-common-5.1.6-27.el5_5.3
> php-cli-5.1.6-27.el5_5.3
> php-5.1.6-27.el5_5.3
>
> (Debug mode was still on, so you can see how the shell handled it).
>
> Conclusion: when using * (or ?) on the command line, ALWAYS quote it to
> avoid unexpected side effects.

Thank you. I see the strange unexpected effect:

Server 6 : mkdir /example
Server 6 : ls /example
Server 6 : cd /example
Server 6 : .l
total 12
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Aug 20 14:06 .
drwxr-xr-x 24 root root 4096 Aug 20 14:06 ..
Server 6 :
Server 6 :
Server 6 : touch php.foobar php.ini php.baz
Server 6 : .l
total 12
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Aug 20 14:07 .
drwxr-xr-x 24 root root 4096 Aug 20 14:06 ..
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Aug 20 14:07 php.baz
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Aug 20 14:07 php.foobar
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Aug 20 14:07 php.ini
Server 6 : ls
php.baz php.foobar php.ini
Server 6 : rpm -qa php*
Server 6 :
Server 6 : cd /
Server 6 : rpm -qa php*
php-pdo-5.1.6-27.el5_5.3
php-mbstring-5.1.6-27.el5_5.3
php-cli-5.1.6-27.el5_5.3
php-mcrypt-5.1.6-15.el5.centos.1
php-common-5.1.6-27.el5_5.3
php-mysql-5.1.6-27.el5_5.3
php-5.1.6-27.el5_5.3
phpmyadmin-2.11.11.3-2.el5.rf
Server 6 :


Yes. Very unexpected results !

Thanks again.

Paul
Always Learning.




_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos