Re: PEAR packages 1.0 and 2.0 dependencies - nonsense

Laurent Laville 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. Laurent, I know it probably won't mean much to you, but PEAR version 1.4.2 and earlier had a serious bug in handling of package.xml which could render installations corrupted or unstable. Not to mention all versions of PEAR older than 1.4.3 have security holes (this includes 1.3.5). You are welcome to change the pearinstaller dependency to 1.4.0 if you wish, it involves deleting "1.4.3" from package2.xml and changing it to "1.4.0" So, really the problem is not in the design, but in the fact that it doesn't make sense to you. I hope these explanations remedy that problem. Greg