On 08/09/16 09:24, Daniel Morris wrote: > On Thu, 8 Sep 2016, at 09:07 AM, Lester Caine wrote: >> I've just been through an exercise to give PHP_CodeSniffer a go on my >> code base. I've not worried too much about that in the past since >> Eclipse in general flags style problems as well as simple errors. This >> is a package that SUSE does not support, so the current install path is >> just PEAR. I don't see packages like this as a library that my sites >> use. It is a stand alone tool ( and a command line one at that :) ) so >> how would loading that be managed if PEAR is not available? > > PHP_CodeSniffer is already compatible with Composer, and Composer has > the ability to specify dependencies, and dependencies intended for > development. After running composer install you can execute > `vendor/bin/phpcs`, and if you were working collaboratively, > collaborators would all have the same toolset that you have.
I know this is a problem for PHP_CodeSniffer to rework it's documentation, but it is a chicken and egg. PEAR provides a framework to store things like PHP_CodeSniffer in the common area away from our web folders. A similar set of guidelines to install via composer are needed as an alternative and those are not currently in place? The point I think here is that removing the built in installer for one off users is what is being discussed and that should only happen if there is an alternative. While composer can be used as an alternative, is it really the best alternative for a simple built in loader? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
