Re: question about package(2).xml from CVS

Hi Greg and Carsten, Gregory Beaver wrote:

Mark Wiesemann wrote:

Carsten Wiedmann wrote:

Gregory Beaver schrieb:

But it's not possible to install the package with:

cd pear\Foo_Bar pear install package.xml

So I want ask, what are the rules for package(2).xml files in CVS?

If it is not possible, the package is broken.

Thus, in accordance with my answer for Chuck [1] the package DB_Table is brocken and I have to report a bug.

No, the package is working fine. It just doesn't make sense to have (unreleased) changelog items in the package(2).xml file that refer to the wrong (= old) date and/or version number. That's why date, time, and version are set to "?" currently. There are several packages in PEAR that handle the package.xml this way.

Hi Mark, I'm aware that several packages do it this way. Perhaps now that we have roadmaps in place on pearweb, it would be a better plan to set date to a future date, the same one as is estimated on the roadmap. This makes it clear that the package is to be released in the future, and still allows installation from cvs. I don't think any mandating need happen - but I do think it is highly recommended to have a valid package.xml in CVS at all times in order to help your more zealous users who will provide you convenient patches against CVS if they can install the thing :)

Thanks for your comments, I wasn't aware that this CVS installation method is that "popular". I'll try to have always valid package.xml files for the next release cycles of my packages. Regards, Mark -- http://www.markwiesemann.eu