Re: Modern practices ...

On 9 September 2016 09:39:07 BST, Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk> wrote: >Back to PEAR ... what happens if I simply install a copy of composer >centrally and rename it 'PEAR'. composer.phar simply gets installed >centrally and any new tech has access without having to install their >own copy. This is more or less how I've always used it: we don't call it "pear", but composer is placed in /usr/bin so it can be run the same way as any system command. It can be upgraded by anyone with sudo rights by running "sudo composer self-update". This makes sense to me, as that's where you'd put, say, a C compiler. Others put a local copy in with their source code, so that they can easily build the code on different boxes which might not have a copy. The important thing with composer is not where you put the tool you use to build things, but where you put the things you've built. It's similar to distributing DLLs for a Windows application: do you assume / ensure that the libraries and versions you've built against exist in the system directory (the global install that PEAR defaults to) or do you consider them part of your application, versioned and deployed as part of it (the local install that Composer defaults to). So it's not really about "play areas" or safety, it's just a philosophical and practical question of which approach is "best". Regards, -- Rowan Collins [IMSoP]