Re: [RFC] Extension Prepend Files
| From: | Derick Rethans | Date: | Thu, 08 Jan 2015 11:36:05 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] Extension Prepend Files | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-80268@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Wed, 7 Jan 2015, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> > There is currently no way to install an extension and a PHP library
> > package at the same time. "pecl" can't install PHP libraries, and
>
> Why it needs to be "at the same time"? I don't see any use case where
> it would matter if you run one command or two commands to install it.
Well, I do. And it's not *just* installing two packages. It is also
adding extra lines to every script to load code that your extension
*depends* on. I would pick an "pecl install" over a "pecl install this",
"composer install that", "add a few lines to a script" as an
installation method anytime.
> > "composer" can't install extensions. And even if it did, keeping the
> > versions in sync is not easy at all. Only way to solve this properly
> > is
>
> It seems to me you're reinventing packaging systems.
I want to solve the issue where I have a PHP library that is tied to C
code, without having to deal with random tools and depencies for no
reason. PHP packaging systems don't do that.
> I don't see why we should invent our own and why our own should take
> form of putting PHP code into compiled binaries (yet less why suddenly
> it is the "only way"). Many languages have extension systems and
> packages that involve binaries - Perl, Python, Ruby, etc. AFAIK none
> of them puts source code into binaries.
Most of those languages don't depend as heavily on parts written in C
though. They will only break out to C for specific reasons. PHP
extensions are the other way around. It's almost always C, but some opt
to also use some PHP to make developement faster.
cheers,
Derick