What PHP version does RHEL 7.7 come with?
-
PHP 5.4.16? At least that's what version it is in CentOS 7.7.1908
-
@black3dynamite said in What PHP version does RHEL 7.7 come with?:
PHP 5.4.16? At least that's what version it is in CentOS 7.7.1908
Thanks! I was told 5.4, but I just couldn't believe it, so that's why I wanted to verify.
5.4 is freakin ancient. 5.4.16 was released June 2013.
-
@Pete-S said in What PHP version does RHEL 7.7 come with?:
@black3dynamite said in What PHP version does RHEL 7.7 come with?:
PHP 5.4.16? At least that's what version it is in CentOS 7.7.1908
Thanks! I was told 5.4, but I just couldn't believe it, so that's why I wanted to verify.
5.4 is freakin ancient. 5.4.16 was released June 2013.
On RHEL website, there is a how to guide to install php 5.6 or php 7.
https://access.redhat.com/solutions/2705621You will need to subscribe to the Red Hat Software Collections channel repository install those packages.
-
@Pete-S said in What PHP version does RHEL 7.7 come with?:
@black3dynamite said in What PHP version does RHEL 7.7 come with?:
PHP 5.4.16? At least that's what version it is in CentOS 7.7.1908
Thanks! I was told 5.4, but I just couldn't believe it, so that's why I wanted to verify.
5.4 is freakin ancient. 5.4.16 was released June 2013.
And RHEL 7 is from July of 2014. So 5.4 was current.
-
@black3dynamite said in What PHP version does RHEL 7.7 come with?:
PHP 5.4.16? At least that's what version it is in CentOS 7.7.1908
The version should not change because that's the purpose of an LTS, to lock versions so that developers know that everything will remain stagnant and old for as long as possible. If any software on the system were to update versions (beyond security patching) it would total screw the ecosystem and the reason for having chosen an LTS or "locked to something old" version.
-
If you want your OS to update packages, you need to avoid LTS releases. If you like RHEL but want updates more than every seven years, you use Fedora, for example. In the Ubuntu world, just don't pick the LTS releases and you naturally get updates every six months. In the Suse world, Tumbleweed gives updates and Leap is your LTS.
LTS is meant to be a niche solution for dealing with unsupported or poorly supported software. It's not meant to be a standard solution in this day and age.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What PHP version does RHEL 7.7 come with?:
@black3dynamite said in What PHP version does RHEL 7.7 come with?:
PHP 5.4.16? At least that's what version it is in CentOS 7.7.1908
The version should not change because that's the purpose of an LTS, to lock versions so that developers know that everything will remain stagnant and old for as long as possible. If any software on the system were to update versions (beyond security patching) it would total screw the ecosystem and the reason for having chosen an LTS or "locked to something old" version.
Yes, except that PHP 5.4.16 is version 5.4
.16 is the bugfix / security point release.So if you do it right with PHP, the minor version (5.4) shouldn't change because you don't want to break things, but the point release should change because you want bug and security fixes.
So yes, they should stick to 5.4 but they should now be on the last point release 5.4.54.
PS. Yes, I know Red Hat backports things too so Red Hat's 5.4.16 is some bastardized version of 5.4.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What PHP version does RHEL 7.7 come with?:
If you want your OS to update packages, you need to avoid LTS releases. If you like RHEL but want updates more than every seven years, you use Fedora, for example. In the Ubuntu world, just don't pick the LTS releases and you naturally get updates every six months. In the Suse world, Tumbleweed gives updates and Leap is your LTS.
LTS is meant to be a niche solution for dealing with unsupported or poorly supported software. It's not meant to be a standard solution in this day and age.
I get what you're saying.
But LTS is just long term support so it doesn't have anything to do with the release schedule.
If Red Hat had more resources they could have released a major version each year and then supported it for ten years. Then you'd never have anything older than one year on a new installation.In this case it's the customers choice to use RHEL.
-
@Pete-S said in What PHP version does RHEL 7.7 come with?:
But LTS is just long term support so it doesn't have anything to do with the release schedule
That's not actually correct. The term LTS refers to long term support for a specific release that doesn't change. The term means nothing in any other context. It's not the release schedule that I'm talking about either, that's a different animal. For example RHEL 8 is already out, but that doesn't change what is in RHEL 7. LTS for RHEL 7 means specifically that you want to run old RHEL 7 code, but keep getting support from the vendor.
If you wanted old code but no support, you could just run Fedora 16.
-
@Pete-S said in What PHP version does RHEL 7.7 come with?:
If Red Hat had more resources they could have released a major version each year and then supported it for ten years. Then you'd never have anything older than one year on a new inst
Yes, you would. If you use RHEL 7 and even if RHEL 8 came out th enext day, and RHEL 9 a week later... if you stay on RHEL 7 your code would not change.
Support length and release cycle are two different concepts. It's like latency and bandwidth, we associate them because they have related effects, but they are different things.
Red Hat DOES release a major version not just every year, but every six months, that's Fedora's job and has been for a really long time. The Fedora product is for staying "up to date", the RHEL / CentOS product is for LTS. Could they release LTS products more often? Sure, but people who want LTS don't want that, it doesn't make sense. It would just be wasteful.
-
@Pete-S said in What PHP version does RHEL 7.7 come with?:
In this case it's the customers choice to use RHEL.
It always is. Customers can choose LTS or current releases from any major vendor, even Microsoft. The LTS + Current model was so good for RHEL and Ubuntu that MS, Suse, and others all switched to it. Solaris and AIX did not, but they are effectively legacy today anyway. All significant players do the same thing... LTS for people who don't want things to update for many years, and current releases that are nearly always six months and for Suse, daily.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What PHP version does RHEL 7.7 come with?:
@Pete-S said in What PHP version does RHEL 7.7 come with?:
But LTS is just long term support so it doesn't have anything to do with the release schedule
That's not actually correct. The term LTS refers to long term support for a specific release that doesn't change. The term means nothing in any other context. It's not the release schedule that I'm talking about either, that's a different animal. For example RHEL 8 is already out, but that doesn't change what is in RHEL 7. LTS for RHEL 7 means specifically that you want to run old RHEL 7 code, but keep getting support from the vendor.
That's exactly what I said.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What PHP version does RHEL 7.7 come with?:
@Pete-S said in What PHP version does RHEL 7.7 come with?:
If Red Hat had more resources they could have released a major version each year and then supported it for ten years. Then you'd never have anything older than one year on a new inst
Yes, you would. If you use RHEL 7 and even if RHEL 8 came out th enext day, and RHEL 9 a week later... if you stay on RHEL 7 your code would not change.
I said "New install" Scott. You are saying the exact same thing as I did.
-
@Pete-S said in What PHP version does RHEL 7.7 come with?:
@scottalanmiller said in What PHP version does RHEL 7.7 come with?:
@black3dynamite said in What PHP version does RHEL 7.7 come with?:
PHP 5.4.16? At least that's what version it is in CentOS 7.7.1908
The version should not change because that's the purpose of an LTS, to lock versions so that developers know that everything will remain stagnant and old for as long as possible. If any software on the system were to update versions (beyond security patching) it would total screw the ecosystem and the reason for having chosen an LTS or "locked to something old" version.
Yes, except that PHP 5.4.16 is version 5.4
.16 is the bugfix / security point release.So if you do it right with PHP, the minor version (5.4) shouldn't change because you don't want to break things, but the point release should change because you want bug and security fixes.
So yes, they should stick to 5.4 but they should now be on the last point release 5.4.54.
PS. Yes, I know Red Hat backports things too so Red Hat's 5.4.16 is some bastardized version of 5.4.
Yeah, the RH backport thing gets weird sometimes.
-
@Pete-S said in What PHP version does RHEL 7.7 come with?:
@scottalanmiller said in What PHP version does RHEL 7.7 come with?:
@Pete-S said in What PHP version does RHEL 7.7 come with?:
If Red Hat had more resources they could have released a major version each year and then supported it for ten years. Then you'd never have anything older than one year on a new inst
Yes, you would. If you use RHEL 7 and even if RHEL 8 came out th enext day, and RHEL 9 a week later... if you stay on RHEL 7 your code would not change.
I said "New install" Scott. You are saying the exact same thing as I did.
Oh I see what you are saying. No one does that, though, they have STS for that. Fedora, Ubuntu Current, Normal Windows 2019. They all do STS. LTS makes no sense in the real world if you are willing to use what is new at install time.
