Re: solution for those depending on PEAR packages with non-PEAR

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 08:13:13 -0400 cellog@php.net (Greg Beaver) wrote: > The problem is not fixed. If you use the same directory > structure, the new package will conflict with the PEAR package, > and users won't be able to have both installed at once. If you > change the directory structure, you have to modify every instance > in your application. In addition, the instant you start > maintaining your own private copy, you lose all of the benefits > of open source, and we're back to caveman programming again. You are not maintaining your own private copy, you are maintaining what you need and drop the other dependency. If you can rely on an extern tool, your only choice is to make you independent, if you help other people as well, fine, do it in your channel(s). The original package's channel will die, end of the story. > In the real world, Define to me once your definition of a real world. > if there is no way to provide a quick patched version, In my real world, working with patched versions is a nightmare. I can do it for one or two minor releases, but as soon as possible, the broken dep will be droped, period. > then you simply can't depend on the package at all, which means > you can't use the PEAR installer at all, and you might as well not > use PEAR at all, and just maintain private forks of PEAR > packages. This apple is green and not tasty, this orange neither and the sky is grey today, ho, I cannot use pear then. For the sky nothing you can do, for the fruits, find another shop. Saying "then you simply can't depend on the package at all" or "you can't use the PEAR installer at all" is simply wrong. > We really need a better solution than "just keep doing what you're > doing, it's not our problem" in this case. It could be our problem, but that does mean we have to open the hell's doors. What S. Schmidt said is the perfect example of what I do not like to see: "it would be great, if I could use it to provide patched versions any just any package" I understand Lukas point of view quit well. He is sane enough to apply the patch exception for (nearly) only bugs. But what you propose is: Hey guys, let patches, forks, whatever you want to do, any times you do not like something or want something. And this is scary. > That is, unless PEAR really is useless. If that's the case, then > I think we need to talk :). Is it possible to stop to be a demagogue, giving wrong effects to non existent causes. That brings nothing and does not help to give a honest and clear explanation. Regards, --Pierre