Re: PEAR Installer?

Just thinking out loud here..:) Why actually is the cgi/standalone version of PHP really needed? The installer is PHP script? Why not have some sort of GUI which can be accessed via browser? Security issues? Sorry if this has been discussed before. I haven't been subscribed to this list for very long. --Jani On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Christian Stocker wrote: >On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Dietrich Ayala wrote: > >> Is there any documentation or how-to's regarding the PEAR Installer, and the >> package.xml format? > >I don't think so. For package.xml format, it's the best you look at the >package.xml of other packages at the moment. The problem is, that some use >the "old" style format. Auth should have a new one (others too) > >concering the installer. >if you have a correct package.xml, you can make a package.tgz with >pear package package.xml > >and later you are able to install this package with > >pear install package.tgz (or even with >http://ho.st/package.tgz) > >I'm not really up to date with the whole stuff, but there should be a >registry soon, which knows, which packages one has installed. > >the main problem is, that you need a cgi/standalone version of php for >being able to use this pear scripts. that's where the WebInstaller comes >into place, but this one is not finished yet (some basics do work at the >moment.. see pear/WebInstaller.php). I like to develop that further, but >a) i have not much time at the moment (should be better later in the year) >and b) i rather wait, till the installer-classes settle a little bit ;) i >hope, we can roll out a really useful WebInstaller with php 4.2 (*uu* i >hope i didn't promise too much) > >so long > >chregu > > >