Re: Pearweb vs xhtml

Helgi Þormar Þorbjörnsson wrote: > Oii, > > On Jan 15, 2008 9:56 PM, Marco <markright@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Helgi >> >> Looks good on first glance but we don't require Role_Web anymore, perhaps >>> it accidentally slipped into the newest release, at least I removed it in >>> CVS already ;-) >>> >> Great, I didnt try CVS yet and the RC2 did ask me to run Role_Web first >> >> We're using the new www roles in PEAR 1.7.0 and the sql files are >>> obsolete, in fact the installer should be able to create the database for >>> you if the user you supply has the proper rights :-) >>> >> That would be great, I didn't try the CVS yet as I wanted to use the pear >> installer itself.. unless there is a way to install CVS version using the >> pear command? >> > > pear install package.xml > > add -f after install for upgrades and such, at least that's how I do it when > I develop ;-) pear upgrade -f package.xml is slightly better, as it will remove old files of the package prior to installation, which will delete anything removed from package.xml. Makes cleanup a bit easier. Greg