On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:09:28 +0100 "James Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, it should be fairly easy to use the same codebase for two > different sites and have a few if statements to stylize the site > depending on which url is going to. (btw, pecl.php.net is already an > alias for pear.php.net, I don't think I have setup the right apache > config though) > > Why do this? I think that the pear people should focus on managing the > PEAR libraries, and perhaps some ext developers help move PECL in the > right direction. It's like someone telling me that I'm now in charge > of some sheep. I don't really know much about sheep, how to control > them, or anything, so I wouldn't do a great job. But... I know just a > little bit, so perhaps they wouldn't die in the first week. Yes, but the release process and tools (in the website) is exactly the same. The permissions management does not allow anauthorized users to mess up PECL things (and PECL users...). That said, PEAR people take care of their packages, PECL people take care of theirs. And we take care of the single, nice and well done public infrastructure. Why add more confusions? imo, keep the public repository as one and single place is the easiest and best way to do. As I already said, please do not split PECL from PEAR, cvs tree is one thing, the installer infrastructure is another thing. The pear core developers and you (phpdev) should work hand in hand to make the whole thing the standart package system (for both extensions and php scripts). Start by getting PECL completely out of PEAR is not the way, imo. pierre -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
