Re: better management of php-src/pear and PEAR's future in php

On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Tim Jackson<lists@timj.co.uk> wrote: > On 17/07/09 00:20, Greg Beaver wrote: > >> 1) how important is the backwards compatibility of the "pear" and >> "pecl" >> script commands?  I.e. does Pyrus need to provide a way to emulate the >> interface to these scripts or can we break backwards compatibility on >> this point by having these scripts just call pyrus's frontend with >> default channels pear/pecl? > > Even as a very heavy user of the PEAR installer, I don't think it's > essential. I also think that given Pyrus is very much brand new tech (e.g.. > PHP 5.3+), it would be good to make a clean break and keep Pyrus clean of > legacy things. However, if the backwards compatibility is not preserved > 100%, I would prefer that the commands "pear" and "pecl" were *not* > provided > by Pyrus at all, > > a) to avoid confusion > > b) to allow the possibility of someone building a truly compatible layer >   which emulates the old commands > > Tim IMHO BC is an issue here when it comes to the adoption rate. Currently a lot of non-PEAR projects (e.g. phing, phpunit, doctrine, symfony) use pear to distribute their software. Is it wise to make them all adjust to a totally new system? I guess it's a matter of how long you want to offer updates to the pear installer itself. If it's like a next zero transition period to get everyone to update to pyrus, then I think BC should be preserved. Till