Re: Re: dependencies andapplications

On 21 Aug 2003 at 17:57, Jan Schneider wrote: > Zitat von Stefan Neufeind <stefan@neufeind.net>: > > > On 21 Aug 2003 at 17:40, Pierre-Alain Joye wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 17:36:34 +0200 > > > Jan Schneider <jan@horde.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I'm definitively against the idea to implement that (if it's > > > > > possible/good/well done) in 1.x release. > > > > > > > > But it should be before the first API breaking release hits the > > > > road. > > > > > > > > > > Indeed. And we should obviously do not allow a release that breaks > > > the actual rules. > > You still don't get it. I did. But you're just looking from a different point of view / having a different proposal. > > We were not talking about "breaking the rules". Just extending them > > :- ))) > > If I'm not completely wrong, Pierre is talking about packages breaking > their APIs, not about the PEAR installer. The packages shouldn't need major changes or even require to place MDB in pear/MDB/2.x/ themselves instead of MDB/. Or it's just my view that's a bit "mixed up". I thought we wanted to improve the directory- structure and also implement this multi-version-feature. (Mind the pear/ in the example above - has been proposed earlier in this thread ... I still remember :-))). > > What if we implement that packages will be installed in the old > > directories as well as ALSO in the new directories - maybe starting > > from PEAR version 1.3 or 1.4 on? > > No. There won't be the same package (or even same major versions of a > package) in different directories (at least in my proposal). All > packages that currently exist will stay where they are now as long as > they don't bumb the major version number. Even if there will only be > new minor version releases for the next ten years. I don't think that's a good solution because then we can't say at some point "now all packages are under pear/...". And carrying ten- year-old-burdens is not logical to me either. We should find a good solution to do a smooth transition and then have a PEAR that behaves according to the rules (as Pierre reminded correctly). The transition state (e.g. for 6 month) is something intermediate. > > Then you can smootly switch to the> new situation. The only thing > > that really "brakes" something will be the switch to 2.0 when the > > old directory-structures will be cancled / dropped. > > The old structure won't be dropped. Never. The new structure applies > only to packages with an X+1.0 version compared to today. As mentioned above I'm -1 ^ 10 against this :-) What do the others think about such a solution. The bad point I see about this is that we will never have a "clean" structure again - because still some old- style packages will remain for ever :-((( Stefan