On Thu, 2019-09-19 at 13:06 +0100, Dan Ackroyd wrote: > Johannes wrote: > > I think we should clarify what PECL actually is. > > Without such a tool the need for a central distribution > > site goes away > > I think there is still a large amount of value in PECL being 'merely' > a distribution channel. My understanding is that downstream > maintainers find it far easier to pickup versions from pecl than > picking up individual repos.
Correct. One thinking is that we make PECL a simple directory, where we allow everybody to register stuff and don't care further (modulo legal/abuse issues) At the moment PECL is in some weird between state. In the past, when I was more involved, I tried to do basic reviews and use PECL as vehicle to help getting developers into php-src, by teaching some best practices and where to look and having some personal relationship to the people. PECL historically, as said, also was about php.net taking at least co-ownership. > Plus of course it helps prevent extensions from disappearing. Good point - while the question is what it's worth to keep it around in unmaintained state. > Johannes wrote: > > from php-src point of view PECL is the graveyard > > where extensions go for their final rest. > > ಠ_ಠ > > Some of us maintain extensions on PECL quite happily thank-you. /s > > Seriously though, I think one of the main reasons why that view isn't > totally wrong is that it's just been so hard for people to create > pecl > accounts that it's caused people to not publish their extensions > there. To be clear that was overstated and was in order to describe the contrast to a previous use as incubator. php-src also wasn't meant to refer to people but literally the code repo. (in CVS days incubating in PECL worked in the way that extensions was developed in PECL and after some time the repo was moved into php-src with a single literal `mv` on the CVS server) > Arnold Daniels wrote: > > > As an alternative, maybe we can create a new channel > > I strongly support anyone that wants to work on that, particularly > since PECL is deprecated due to it's reliance on PEAR. However that > really needs to be a separate topic than just fixing the immediate > problem of the PECL signup process being too much of a gate-keepered > experience currently. Not sure what "channel" means - especially as we are losing out current installer ;-) > Johannes wrote: > > Or is ffi the big push for those 95% making pecl actually mostly > > obsolete, > > I also haven't had time to investigate FFI yet, however the feedback > I > have seen from other people is that there are quite a few issues > around the ecosystem when trying to use it, that are going to limit > how useful it is for a while. But that is a conversation that other > people will need to pickup. Interesting. > I'm not sure the idea I suggested actually requires an RFC, and I'm > in I don't participate in that debate. johannes -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
