Pierre Joye wrote: > hi, > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 1:20 AM, Greg Beaver<g...@chiaraquartet.net> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I'd like to start a discussion on php-src/pear and how we can manage it >> better for PHP 5.3, and to discuss the future of PEAR in PHP. >> >> First, take note that both internals@ and pear-dev@ are copied on this >> email. >> >> For some background, currently the pear components are dynamically added >> to a checkout by downloading from pear.php.net. These components are >> install-pear-nozlib.phar and go-pear.phar (for windows). In addition, >> the windows go-pear.phar is only downloaded by the build script for >> windows. Although this works, it adds some obscurity to how the process >> really works. >> > > Is it possible to have one single phar for all platforms? That would > already make the whole thing easier to manage. > This would be more challenging to do, but may be possible. The biggest problem is that go-pear is interactive, and install-pear is not.
One thing that is good to note is that both go-pear/install-pear may be obsoleted by Pyrus since it doesn't need to be installed to work. The only thing that we'd need to distribute would be scripts to invoke Pyrus. My question is mainly whether to make stub "pear" and "pecl" scripts that will invoke Pyrus, and if these should pretend to be PEAR (support some of the more obscure things PEAR supports). >> I'd like to consider instead using svn:externals to pull in PEAR stuff >> directly from a STABLE branch from somewhere in the pear/ hierarchy. >> This would allow us over at PEAR to push the installation phars into >> that branch at the same time a release is made, and would also allow >> quick fixes by a quick revert to a previous revision. >> > > Sounds clean enough and will hopefully avoid the recent issues. > > >> 1) how important is the backwards compatibility of the "pear" and "pecl" >> script commands? I.e. does Pyrus need to provide a way to emulate the >> interface to these scripts or can we break backwards compatibility on >> this point by having these scripts just call pyrus's frontend with >> default channels pear/pecl? >> > > New tools, new commands. How different is it to install a package? Basic stuff is all the same, install/upgrade/uninstall work as PEAR does, identical syntax and all. Some of the more obscure stuff has been removed, such as --soft, --register-only and --ignore-errors. Configuration has changed a bit, and the config-set command has been replaced with just "set" The "info" command performs the duty of both info and remote-info, and remote-list has replaced list-all. In addition, the --installroot option as implemented by PEAR (which was always strange) is gone, --packagingroot is the option for those doing RPM building. Pyrus, however, is alpha, which is why I'm asking what is really important, we can still change it if anything is really crucial. Greg -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
