Re: PEAR DB copied to pear/
| From: | Stig S. Bakken | Date: | Thu, 07 Feb 2002 23:09:01 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: PEAR DB copied to pear/ | ||
| References: | 1 2 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-4533@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Thu, 2002-02-07 at 21:45, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
> > >I really don't understand what's the rush with moving everything to
> /pear,
> > >especially since the infrastructure is still not in place. The removal of
> > >Log class will cause many problems for me as well. Could someone provide
> an
> > >answer what's wrong with bundling the PEAR with PHP distribution?
> >
> > The problem with bundling the _whole_ PEAR stuff with the PHP
> > distribution is, that the distribution tarball will become very
> > big and people will have all sorts of different scripts on their
> > system they will possibly not need at all.
>
> How many glibc functions an average C program uses? Very few.
>
> I've repeated this several times, but here we go again: IMHO in order for
> PEAR to be universally accepted it must go standard class library way, not
> cpan way. Reason is simple. If I have to distribute my application that uses
> PEAR I don't want to write 10 page manual, "and then you download that class
> ... ". Instead I would like to be able to assume that if there is PHP on the
> machine there is PEAR as well. The alternative would be either writing my
> own version of the classes the avoid all the hassle or bundling them in the
> distribution.
>
> I've had very bad expiriences with cpan, and therefore would like PEAR to
> avoid them. After all many people claim that PHP stands for "people hate
> perl" :)
I'm sorry, but the repeat timer for this discussion is still counting
down. Try again in two weeks. :-)
- Stig
Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] This is a digitally signed message part signature.asc
Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] This is a digitally signed message part signature.asc