On 2010-7-2 03:40 , Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > On Jul 1, 2010, at 12:15, Scott Haneda wrote: > >> On Jul 1, 2010, at 6:44 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> >>> Same for PEAR support: instead, you use the php5 port's +pear variant. >> >> How come if you need MySql support you would do php5-mysql but if you need >> pear you would do php5 +pear, which seems inconsistent? I don't care, but >> to a end user, it would seem more logical to be looking for php5-pear. > > Completely agreed. I'd like things to be consistent and expected, and that's > one reason #19091 is still not closed after a year. (It's not done.) > > I would like php5 +pear to become php5-pear. Anybody interested in making > that happen should feel free to do so. I personally have not had any interest > in PEAR in many years which is why it is not a priority for me. > > The other option is for us to say the user should install PEAR manually, and > to just remove the pear variant and provide no replacement in MacPorts. The > problem with PEAR that I've mentioned before is that like Perl's CPAN and > Ruby's Gems, it installs things into the MacPorts prefix, which we don't want > software to do. For Perl and to some extend Ruby we chose to overcome this by > making individual ports for each module. We could do the same with each bit > of software you can get from PEAR. But it would be a big undertaking. I'm not > going to be the one to undertake it, but others should feel free to > investigate it.
The third option is to patch pear to install somewhere that won't conflict with any ports. This would make sense for cpan/easy_install/gem/etc as well. - Josh _______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
