On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 09:23:29 -0700 (PDT) Rasmus Lerdorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The one point on the QA issue is that nobody ever looks through all > the PECL extensions, but we occasionally grep through all the ext/* > extensions to make sure that an API change, or just a simple mistake > that we found does not occur in other extensions. > We need to raise the priority of PECL/* in the hearts and minds of the > developers so that instead of just scanning ext/* we also scan PECL/*. Definitively a good thing. > Getting it out of PEAR and up to its own top-level cvs module is a > start. It really doesn't have anything to do with PEAR and needs to be > a lot closer to the php-dev crowd than the pear-dev crowd. I do not follow you here. Getting PECL out of the pearcvs sounds the most logical and safe thing to do (permissions management, visibility,...). Then I do not think PECL has really nothing to do with PEAR (I'm talking about the PEAR infrastructure). PEAR is now very stable, but not full featured. Versionning, package states and binaries installation, sources packages on non Unix OS are in the TODO. The last two point really needs contribution from the php developers. We are not far to get something good for both binaries and win32 build or? Indeed PECL has to be closer to the php-dev than peardev, from the current extensions as well as the future extensions proposals. But I will not like to see a abyss between PEAR and PECL, as I can see one between PEAR and php, that will be a *real* pain to maintain the pear infrastructure and the bundled installer. my 2cts, pierre -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
