On 03.07.2007 00:50, John Mertic wrote:
If an author would like his extension in the Windows installer then they
could just ask, would prevent unmaintained and unstable extensions
included in the build.
But we are shipping them currently in the zip build ( all I'm doing is
repackaging php-5.2.x-win32.zip and pecl-5.2.x-win32.zip )
The zip build is php-5.2.x-win32.zip, you merge it with the PECL package
(pecl-5.2.x-win32.zip),
which I believe is supposed to be completely separate thing and that causes the
mess.
so I think the issue would be better dealt with at the PECL level.
Well. no doubt it should be dealt on the PECL level (i.e. maintainers should start
maintaining their extensions etc.), but that's a bit unrealistic..
We should have
some sort of stability status similar to PEAR and use that when
determining which extensions to ship.
Could the features potentially be grouped into two trees? Core and added
functionality that can come from PECL?
Originally, I was thinking the same thing, but the consensus was to
make it the way it is currently. I like the two tree approach myself
and switch to that if that what everyone wants to do. But I do
remember the disention is that it seemed to confusing; perhaps
splitting them up based upon stability instead?
Not sure I get you correctly (most probably not), but we do have two separate .zip
packages for Win32 and I don't remember any complaints about it.
To my personal understanding, the point of this thread is: "please do not merge PECL
package into the CORE".
Just leave it as is, it's separate package and it's not supposed to be included into the official distro
(most of those packages should not be built & distributed at all, but that's a topic for another discussion).
--
Wbr,
Antony Dovgal
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
