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

On 11/22/07, Mark Wiesemann <wiesemann@php.net> wrote: > > 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. FYI that's how I test my packages, I always install the cvs package.xml, be it mine or some other so a valid package.xml is quite nice, or a package.php to generate a valid one ;) - Helgi