Re: Pearweb vs xhtml

On Jan 15, 2008 11:15 PM, Gregory Beaver <greg@chiaraquartet.net> wrote: > 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. > Ahh you are right, install -f has become a habit of mine I guess :-) Thanks for the heads up. - Helgi