Re: [PEPr] Comment on RFC::Requiring E_STRICT Compatibility for New PEAR Packages

Hi, Justin Patrin wrote:

Justin Patrin (http://pear.php.net/user/justinpatrin) has commented on the proposal for RFC::Requiring E_STRICT Compatibility for New PEAR Packages. Comment: I'm a bit worried about this: "it has only E_STRICT-compatible required dependencies" While I understand that technically you can't run in E_STRICT mode with a non-E_STRICT file/package included the code in any package can be E_STRICT compliant without this requirement. Requiring package to only have E_STRICT dependencies means that we, collectively, have to start over from scratch for any dependencies we may need and/or convert existing packages to E_STRICT, causing a new major version with no real gain.

Yes, one of the goals of this RFC is to encourage rewriting the existing packages for PHP5. We don't have to start from scratch obviously, since we already have old versions of the packages available. There will be some real gain, most of PEAR packages had grown quite a bit of mould over the years and a bit of refactoring and API refinement will help them *a lot*. Also, contrary to popular belief there are few "base" packages in PEAR, the ones that are *heavily* depended upon. I'd estimate their number at about 20 (of almost 400 total packages). And, rewriting those base packages for E_STRICT and PHP5 may be a interesting excercise in team development, with the spirit of cooperation PEAR is so famous for. If we don't require E_STRICT compliance from dependencies, we risk having to bump the version of dependent package when the package it depends upon finally releases a new E_STRICT compliant version. And if a package has several dependencies, things can get ugly quite fast.