Re: dependencies and applications

On 21 Aug 2003 at 18:59, Davey wrote: > It seems to me that this is the best solution: > > PEAR 1.x (3 or 4, it should be soon IMO) the following happens: > > # pear install MDB > This goes into the current MDB place aswell as MDB/1.0/ > > # pear install MDB2 > This goes *only* into MDB/2.0/ hmm ... might be a possible (also not a good) solution. Not good because we might have multiple packages with 2,3 or 4 applied to the end of the name. But it's a working solution for the moment, yes. Please read below for another problem. > This then has the following affects: > > Note that when I say current version I don't mean current at any given > moment in time, I mean at this moment in time, so any package > currently in PEAR being used. > > * BC is fully kept till we want to break it (this could even be left > indefinately if you see fit pierre!) * Only one "extraneous" copy of > the package need be kept (in that current version goes into current > place and new place) * New scripts can start using MDB/1.0/ or > MDB/2.0/ as appropriate * By adopting this as early as possible, we > ensure the longest possible migration period * When we eventually move > to PEAR 2.0 and break BC we can still do the E_USER_NOTICE as > suggested * All this can be achieved in the package.xml... theres no > need to work anything in to PEAR... check this out: > > For Current version we have: > > <filelist> > <!-- For Current Directory Structure --> > <dir name="/" baseinstalldir="PEAR"> > <file role="php">Info.php</file> > </dir> > <dir name="/tests"> > <file role="php">pear_info.php</file> > </dir> > <!-- New Directory Structure --> > <dir name="/1.0"> > <file role="php">Info.php</file> > </dir> > <dir name="/1.0/tests"> > <file role="php">pear_info.php</file> > </dir> > </filelist> > > For the new major version we have: > > <filelist> > <!-- New Directory Structure *only* --> > <dir name="/" baseinstalldir="PEAR/2.0"> > <file role="php">Info.php</file> > </dir> > <dir name="/tests"> > <file role="php">pear_info.php</file> > </dir> > </filelist> This is fine from the technical point. But I guess Pierre tried to stress that "this is not allowed in the current rules". Did I get you right, Pierre. So would "the rules" need modification before releasing such a package? But on the other hand I find it a good solution a) if we can agree on the new directory-structure b) if we encourage all maintainers to use it c) if we encourage programmers to use the NEW structure when including files. Would this mean that every package should do a re-release of the current version with a changed package.xml? Stefan