Re: Re: Problem with PEAR installer and PECL extensions

How will this work for the case where a bundled extension has been compiled as a shared extension? What about the possible permutations of shared and static, with the extension being both bundled and having a newer interim release in PECL ? --Wez. On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 06:11:39 -0400, Greg Beaver <cellog@php.net> wrote: > Davey wrote: > > Mika Tuupola wrote: > [snip] > >> As I said "pear list shows pdo is installed. The problem is > >> PEAR installer consideres it as a package not an extension. > >> The problem is fixed if > >> > >> <dep type="ext" rel="ge" > >> version="0.1">pdo</dep> > >> > >> is changed to > >> > >> <dep type="pkg" rel="ge" > >> version="0.1">pdo</dep> > >> > >> in the package.xml This however can be considered to be wrong > >> since PECL should be though as extensions. Or can it be > >> considered wrong? If not, the easy solution would just be to fix > >> all the package.xml files. > >> > > > > IMO, a PECL Extension, is a PECL Package, therefore the <dep type="pkg" > > is valid. <dep type="ext" should only relate to bundled PHP extensions > > This is exactly right - in package.xml 2.0 the difference will be made > entirely clear. The main reasoning here is that pecl extension have > their own versioning scheme, whereas bundled extensions simply inherit > the PHP version they are bundled with. So, an ext (extension in > package.xml 2.0) dependency must be loaded in the installer, whereas a > pecl package will only check the registry. > > This fixes problems that Alan has encountered with extensions being > loaded by dl() - PECL extensions need not be actually loaded in memory > to be considered installed for dependency validation purposes. As more > extensions go PECL, this will make dependency validation a piece of cake. > > Greg > > > > -- > PECL development discussion Mailing List (http://pecl.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >