Re: PEAR packages 1.0 and 2.0 dependencies - nonsense

Salut, 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

Excuse my poor english. As said here , package version 1 and package version 2 are associated to the necessary move 1.3.x to 1.4.x I was right inlvolved to be able to tell it was done the smoothest possible. You can upgrade all your way up without a problem. Now, what make a v1 or v2 different ? A package with only a v1 can be handled through a pear *installer* 1.3.x or 1.4.x A package with only a v2 can be handled only through a pear *installer* 1.4.x A package with a v1 and a v2 will be processed accordingly, if local pear *installer* is 1.3.x then v1 , if 1.4.x then v2. pear 1.4.x handles both , target is to keep Backwards Compatibility. Now, you could conclude, then why a v2 as a v1 is enough ? I'm sure you won't , as you can look into progress in there. A nouveau, excuses ce pauvre anglais. à+ -- toggg