On 05.08.2024 at 17:21, Frederik Bosch wrote: > On 04-08-2024 20:27, Christoph M. Becker wrote: > >> I'm generally fine having PECL extensions written in Rust, *if* these >> extension clearly signal that requirement. A prominent note in the >> documentation would certainly a good first step. Not sure what else >> could be done; upgrading the PECL package.xml format might be an option >> (does it even signal whether an extension requires an C++ compiler?) > > Thank you for your work so far. I think signaling, for me, is no > problem. A specific tag or attribute in the package.xml would be a good > way forward, maybe a new tag <cargo> under <dependencies>. But in the > meantime the description tag and the documentation page can address it too.
That appears to be a sensible compromise for now. If nobody objects, I think we should proceed in a couple of days. Do you already have a PECL account, Frederik? (sorry, I've lost track) Christoph
