Re: Re: Problem with PEAR installer and PECL extensions

Wez Furlong wrote:

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 ?

After your last email before this one, I realized there was one significant omission from the extsrcrelease and extbinrelease tags. They both need to specify the name of the extension that they provide. This way, the dependency check for an extension package will go as follows: 1) check to see if the provided extension is in memory through the normal process of extension_loaded() 2) if that fails, see if the package is registered as installed from pecl. This way, the version number of the extension will always match the most likely candidate (the in-memory extension). I should reiterate that all of my attention has been on the implementation of regular packages, so most extension ideas are just an idea and open for better ones. Short list of ideas that are non-compromisable: 1) extension binaries must be easily installable by requesting the extension source package (i.e. the source is installed, or if that fails like it does on windows, then the binary package is downloaded and installed instead) 2) extension dependencies must work for both the binary and source versions of an extension Greg