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

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 <scottmac@php.net> 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 <antony@zend.com> 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 jmertic@gmail.com understand it better, but the frog dies in the process." -Mark Twain