On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 15:16:30 +0100 "James Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How do we get here? > > By moving PECL into the limelight. This week, I will be splitting PECL > into it's own cvs module, and (after discussion) I'd like to create a > version of pearweb for pecl.php.net, essentially seperating the PEAR > and PECL projects. I do not agree here with pecl.php.net. From the early days of PEAR, it contains PEAR and PECL, the roadmaps of PEAR was always to take care of PECL inside the PEAR infrastructure. Highlight PECL package inside pear.php.net is quit enough. As a sidenote, the installer currently does not support multiple master servers. Please do not split the whole things, I understand the need of splitting the cvs tree (even if I still do see all the pros/cons), but why do you want suddenly get PECL out of PEAR and still use the pear infrastructure? This is not the way we plan from months now. And I think we should not got this way. Even if some of the phpdev team actually discover the pear/pecl is not the siberia and is a nice system :) > So, the summary: > > Lets promote PECL somewhat. Lets make it work without all the minor > problems right now (eg, secure binaries, win32 support, etc etc). Then > once we are all using that instead of recompiles every time.. (which > won't take long) moving to PECL becomes a natural progression. Lets promote the "universal" installer infrastructure used by PECL as well (and fix/enhance it as said earlier). pierre ps: pear's don quichotte :) -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
