Re: PECL/PEAR in Docs

On Mon, 2004-02-02 at 14:46, Gabor Hojtsy wrote: > > We should change that to be of something more meaning full, maybe even > > with a link to the matching PECL/PEAR entry rather then leaving the user > > in doubt if he/she can actually make use of the function in his/her > > environment. > Steps we need to take to better handle PECL extensions: > > - Move PECL extension docs from peardoc to PHPdoc (split as needed) This might be a bit of a problem as some extensions where moved to PECL but previously where part of the core. This might be a bit of a confusion for the user... Telling a user he has to install this extension from PECL even though for his version of PHP its still shiped within the default distribution might be even more confusing... > - Hartmut's function list script collection should be extended > to handle PECL extensions and PECL version numbers, since this > script collection generates the version information you have > problems with. The most complicated part will probably be > the handling of bundled extensions, since corresponding PECL > / PHP version numbers need to be known... Is that really an issue? I can see the point in knowing the version which came with the a php release, but for a function itself, the only important information is the version of the extension. Since a PECL-Extension can be updated regardless if there used to be a bundled one, i don't see that as a really big problem. It's rather a nice to know thing imho. Regards, Arne -- Arne Blankerts <theseer@php.net>