[sles-beta] php disappeared in beta6?

[Joe Doupnik]

     Golly, this particular discussion has focused on the SUSE strong 
preference to patch instantly, the removal of some functionality, and 
patching to regain it. If we want what's been removed (PHP so far, 
Matthias will likely tell us more next week) then we are obliged to use 
the patch channels to regain it. In my view all told that's rather 
compelling, or if you prefer coercive.
     As to where this is coming from, it's SUSE, but beyond that we in 
the field do not know and many of us are distinctly unhappy about the 
matter.
     Joe D.

On 20/05/2014 14:49, Marcus Meissner wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:32:53PM +0100, Joe Doupnik wrote:
>> Lars,
>>      We all understand that SUSE is trying to offer improved patch services.
>> That is very good. Better engineering seems needed though.
>>      We do not agree with the compulsive patch now approach. We certainly do
>> not agree with the removal approach and have yet to see a credible reason
>> for the removals.
>>      There is no "must" in the patching business. Prudent managers pick and
>> choose both content and timing.
>>
>>      I have a mental picture of today's shopper behaviour: when a Sale! sign
>> appears there arises a compulsive desire to Buy Now! Similarly in the
>> software world with version chasing.
>>      Thanks,
>>      Joe D.
> I am not sure where the "compulsive patch" thing is coming from.
>
> For supportability concerns we ask you to reproduce issues you have on
> the latest update of at least the affected (and potentially dependend)
> packages.
>
> We do never (to my knowledge) force you into applying updates except when
> opening support issues.
>
> Ciao, Marcus
>
>> On 20/05/2014 12:12, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
>>> On 2014-05-20T11:57:30, Joe Doupnik <jrd at netlab1.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>       Thanks for chiming in Kai. Your comments simply reinforce what I
>>>> speculated about. Removal has nothing, nada, to do with offering more, as
>>>> anyone can see at first glance. It has everything to do with the people who
>>>> want customers to use the "more" facility. Thus the attempts at gloss and
>>>> justification continue.
>>> Joe, I'm extremely sorry you feel this way, but this is simply not true.
>>>
>>> We've heard you that our assumption that every server must have *some*
>>> way of deploying updates to it at install and/or runtime in a
>>> not-too-troublesome way was too strong and will consider what we can do
>>> to make it easier to package/bundle those modules somehow, I'm sure.
>>>
>>> (Assuming that some party wants to merely gloss over and/or justify
>>> their process/engineering decisions is a double-edged sword.)
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>       Lars
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sles-beta mailing list
>> sles-beta at lists.suse.com
>> http://lists.suse.com/mailman/listinfo/sles-beta
>>