Make a list of what's considered non-stable and I can drop them from
the builds for 5.2.4.
On 8/21/07, Scott MacVicar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is now another 3 extensions added and the broken ones have yet to
> see any sort of love to get them working.
>
> I'm for removing the non stable PECL extensions or at least those that
> don't even load, especially before 5.2.4.
>
> Scott
>
> John Mertic wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 7/2/07, Antony Dovgal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > It's separate, but there is nothing telling the end user that some
> > extensions ( such as APC, memcache, etc ) are good to use while others
> > aren't.
> >
> >> > 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..
> >
> > That's why I think that have the same sort of tagging system PEAR uses
> > with stable, beta, alpha would help out here tremendously, but like
> > you said that's a topic for another thread....
> >
> >> >> 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).
> >
> > Then let's go with putting the PECL packages in the installer, but a
> > separate menu like you mentioned. Like I said I liked that idea from
> > the start, but I remember people thought it was too confusing for some
> > reason. From my ( and your ) vantage point it makes it much clearer.
> >
>
--
--
John Mertic "Explaining a joke
is like dissecting a frog: you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] understand it better,
but the frog dies in the
process."
-Mark Twain
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
