Re: Re: Question wrt dual-PEAR

Greg Beaver wrote: > Pierre Habouzit wrote: >> the use of the local copy is a pure choice of the user (the root >> actualy) >> if he needs to have a copy in /usr/share/local, then *he* has to put it >> explicitely in the include_path (not debian) >> >> In fact, the thing that frightens me the most is if a user uses >> pear upgrade-all >> instead of apt-get upgrade. And the other problem is that some (even >> stable) packages needs packages that are in debian, but too old. and I >> fear that the interplay between all of them will be a real mess. > > The best thing about the way that the local disconnected repository > would work is that upgrade-all would *not* touch the debian repository. sure ! > You should also look at how gentoo does its ebuilds for pear packages. > The --nodeps option is your friend. All you need to do is tell PEAR to > ignore all dependencies in package.xml, and make damn sure that dpkg > handles them properly (pear makedebian would do this part), and then you > can avoid the problem. well, I do not like it fully since it will lower a double check, that could be quite nice. but maybe it's the only solution. I'll follow your advice and look at gentoo's way (even if it can only be evil ;P) > One other point to consider: PEAR makes use of environment variables. > Why not provide a value in /etc/profile for PHP_PEAR_SYSCONF_DIR that > points to /usr/share/local? Then, put a pear.conf there that loads the > local packages only. not in /etc/profile, this is ugly. but in the pear wrapper, yes it's a nice idea. > This way, the user configuration file would not be affected if root sets > one up. Those who play nice and use dpkg would be able to upgrade the > system-wide PEAR packages. Those who wish to install newer packages can > use the pear command with impunity. > > It should also be noted that if you choose this option, you can provide > a default include_path that is > .:/usr/share/local/php:/usr/dont_touch_this_pear > > so that packages installed using the pear command would work right out > of the box for the lazy root. that was my first idea of the thing in fact. my only concern was with the fact that even with this set like this, is what we talked a lot about : dependencies, local tree won't benefit of the debian one. :/ -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O OOO http://www.madism.org