Handbook: Update PHP packages names to PHP 5.6 versions

[junovitch]

Summary

Update PHP package names to PHP 5.6 variants as PHP 5.4 hit EOL last month.

Reference:	http://php.net/eol.php
Reviewed by:	wblock

Motivated by a look at what was actually in the Handbook after reading https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/install-apache-2-4-on-new-freebsd-10-2-raidz-fails.53457/

[junovitch]

Is it typical to just find/replace across all languages for a change such as this? I'm trying to keep things non-invasive and just ensure we recommend users end up with an upstream supported port (also the DEFAULT_VERSION).

[wblock]

In D3809#78619, @junovitch wrote:

Is it typical to just find/replace across all languages for a change such as this? I'm trying to keep things non-invasive and just ensure we recommend users end up with an upstream supported port (also the DEFAULT_VERSION).

Usually that is left up to the translators.

[junovitch]

In D3809#78628, @wblock wrote:

Usually that is left up to the translators.

If that's the case then this would be it. There's an example of pkg set ... in "4.4.9. Modifying Package Metadata" that I don't think an exact version would matter.

I left the heading as "mod_php" to keep things general there. Mainly it's just to ensure the examples match supported release. I'll update the suggested commit message if you are OK with a reviewed by: for doc.

[wblock]

I don't understand what you mean by "If that's the case then this would be it." Generally, it is bad for anyone other than a translation team to make changes to translations. It can interfere with whatever system the translators are using to track changes. That might change with the PO system.

Anyway, approved. Please test with 'igor -Rz' and always, always build-test before commit. Thanks!

[junovitch]

In D3809#79078, @wblock wrote:

I don't understand what you mean by "If that's the case then this would be it." Generally, it is bad for anyone other than a translation team to make changes to translations. It can interfere with whatever system the translators are using to track changes. That might change with the PO system.

Now that you've explained this, this was just a naive viewpoint as I'm not familiar with how things work on the doc side. I just saw the need to get this updated and dove in.

Anyway, approved. Please test with 'igor -Rz' and always, always build-test before commit. Thanks!

igor -Rz has unrelated noise and the build works.

I have a question however based on viewing the final product. <package>databases/php56-mysql</package> and <package>www/mod_php56</package> both produce bad links because there is no pkg-descr for those ports. I see why a filename tag was originally used for databases/php5-mysql. www/mod_php5 has been producing a bad link all along.

Example:
https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/databases/php56-mysql/pkg-descr?view=markup

How would you like me to handle this? Change to <filename> or leave as <package>?

[wblock]

In D3809#80120, @junovitch wrote:

...

igor -Rz has unrelated noise and the build works.

It can be limited by line number to just check the changes.

I have a question however based on viewing the final product. <package>databases/php56-mysql</package> and <package>www/mod_php56</package> both produce bad links because there is no pkg-descr for those ports. I see why a filename tag was originally used for databases/php5-mysql. www/mod_php5 has been producing a bad link all along.

Example:
https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/databases/php56-mysql/pkg-descr?view=markup

How would you like me to handle this? Change to <filename> or leave as <package>?

No idea. Probably best to ask the ports guys, this might be a situation that has come up before.

[wblock]

In D3809#80324, @wblock wrote:

In D3809#80120, @junovitch wrote:

How would you like me to handle this? Change to <filename> or leave as <package>?

No idea. Probably best to ask the ports guys, this might be a situation that has come up before.

I have inquiries in to mat@.

[mat]

Mmm, I've never had a look at what <package> did, I use it because it's what we have to use when referring to a package :-)
There's a good chance it should be changed to point to the package directory and not the pkg-descr file, or point to freshports, or something.

[mat]

Another way to say it, is use <package> because it's the right thing to do, the fact that, right now, it gives a broken link is an infrastructure problem, and will be fixed some way or another ?

[wblock]

In D3809#80530, @mat wrote:

Mmm, I've never had a look at what <package> did, I use it because it's what we have to use when referring to a package :-)
There's a good chance it should be changed to point to the package directory and not the pkg-descr file, or point to freshports, or something.

It comes from share/xml/freebsd-xhtml-common.xsl:

<xsl:template match="db:package">
  <xsl:variable name="url" select="concat('http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/url.cgi?ports/', ., '/pkg-descr')"/>

  <a class="package" href="{$url}">
    <xsl:apply-templates/>
  </a>
</xsl:template>

It would not be a bad thing to remove this one small dependency on CGI on the web server, either.

[junovitch]

In D3809#80531, @mat wrote:

Another way to say it, is use <package> because it's the right thing to do, the fact that, right now, it gives a broken link is an infrastructure problem, and will be fixed some way or another ?

Super! That is what I was thinking since it's technically correct. I haven't looked to see if there are more instances of it yet but we can fix that with the infrastructure side.

[junovitch]

In D3809#80530, @mat wrote:

Mmm, I've never had a look at what <package> did, I use it because it's what we have to use when referring to a package :-)
There's a good chance it should be changed to point to the package directory and not the pkg-descr file, or point to freshports, or something.

Seems like links to the directory or Makefile produce an error.

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/url.cgi?ports/www/apache24/
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/url.cgi?ports/www/apache24/Makefile

We may want to keep this inside to FreeBSD cluster vice Freshports.

In D3809#80532, @wblock wrote:

It comes from share/xml/freebsd-xhtml-common.xsl:

<xsl:template match="db:package">
  <xsl:variable name="url" select="concat('http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/url.cgi?ports/', ., '/pkg-descr')"/>

  <a class="package" href="{$url}">
    <xsl:apply-templates/>
  </a>
</xsl:template>

It would not be a bad thing to remove this one small dependency on CGI on the web server, either.

Direct link to portsmon perhaps?