Re: solution for those depending on PEAR packages with

Scott Mattocks wrote:

Helgi Þormar wrote:

On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 13:56 -0400, Greg Beaver wrote:

The QA team will wait for up to 6 months to make sure a package is unmaintained before acting. There have been cases of packages with fixes taking 2 years to release - I think this is necessary.

I agree with Greg, it would be nice to support this in any way.

I don't disagree that this would be nice to support, but PEAR already has policies in place to prevent this kind of feature from being needed. I think it would be better to enforce those policies than to spend time and effort on work arounds. The QA team has the right to patch and release major issues within 14 days and minor issues within a month if the developer can't be contacted. Again, I understand the reality of the situation, but you can't deny that if there was enough interest in fixing an issue it would be done in two weeks. I just wanted to put that out there before Greg puts a lot of time and effort into something that, theoretically at least, shouldn't be needed.

Don't forget, channels opens up the use of the PEAR installer to non-PEAR repositories. These repositories may not have the same rules in place, and it will hamper adoption of channels unless there is a way to work around this problem. It is a huge problem in programming in general. Maintaining a patched software package is always difficult. Until this idea, depending on one was impossible. Greg