Re: Re: PEAR packages 1.0 and 2.0 dependencies - nonsense

On 6/8/06, Laurent Laville <pear@laurent-laville.org> wrote:

Greg Beaver a écrit : Laurent Laville wrote:

  Yes       Pear Installer                          (version >= 1.4.3)
  No        Package        pear/PEAR                (version >= 1.3.5)

Read carefully. What is the first dependency type? "Pear Installer" and the second? "Package" How do they differ? When i begun, like others maintainers, i've created a package xml 1.0 because PEAR 1.4.x didn't yet exists. I make PEAR package optional but requires at least version >= 1.3.5 Now with package xml 2.0 , even if PEAR package is still optional, when you try to install Progress2 with a PEAR 1.4.x version what's happens. PEAR installer see that you MUST have at least PEAR 1.4.3, so dependency to package (version 1.3.5) begin unuseless. Hope my explains are now better.

I understand what you're saying but, once again, *this is not useless*. The version of the installer is a different type of dependency than the PEAR package version. You cannot install package.xml 2.0 with an older version of PEAR. The two different depdendencies are still worthwhile and should stay. If you want to allow PEAR 1.3.5 users to use your package and/or don't like the deps in your package2.xml (although there's no reason to be upset about it) just stick with package.xml 1.0 until you need 1.4. -- Justin Patrin