Re: dependencies and applications

On 21 Aug 2003 at 20:35, Alexander Merz wrote: > Stefan Neufeind wrote: > > > I can't fully agree with you. Yes, that's the point of a user - and > > maybe it works for your single-user-system as well. But taking into > > account that php / pear is used often on servers and many also run > > virtual hosts again we have the problem described earlier. > You can have a pear-app foreach vhost. > > > are enough (!) applications that just come a "copy these files there > > and edit the configfile"-style that you can't assume that the > > package- database will know which applications use DB 1.3 or > > something when you upgrade to DB 2.0. > There is no problem to add something like that: > pear-lib add-app-dep <pkgname> <pkgversion> <appbasedir> > > But lazy programmer are not your problem. > > > And one more thing you should notice: What about the case when you > > have only DB 2.0 on your system and THEN want to use a program / > > tool / script that still relies on 1.3? "Well, I would rewrite it or > > not > Then pear-app installs 1.3 in the app base dir As pointed out by several persons already I think that copying tot he app dir is not a good choice! > > use it" is no good answer to this question. A centralised storage > > for 1.x and 2.0-libs would not have this problem. > Hm, you are looking for a solution, which allows > - an user/vhost specific pear-installation/registry > - installing different versions of a pkgs > - and this all should work with include() > - and should not breaks BC :-) Well, maybe. Different versions meaning "different major versions". And I'm not talking about different app-packages but in the main part of this discussion at the moment multiple major versions of a package / class. I don't want a pear-tree per vhost either ... Keeping BC is no problem with out solutions already mentioned in the last messages on this list. Stefan