Re: Re: Too many extensions bundled with the Windows Installer?

On 03.07.2007 17:36, John Mertic wrote:

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.

Each extension which has been released has "State", i.e. alpha-beta-stable flag. I don't understand why the package includes the extensions which were never released, but that fact can be also as indicator of their stability.

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....

We do have it. See http://pecl.php.net/package/imagick for example - there is a "State" column in the table.

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.

I would even further and remove PECL dlls from the installer at all, taking into account that most of the people who use the installer don't even know what PECL is and certainly don't need it. -- Wbr, Antony Dovgal