Re: make-packages.php

it's not too late for changes, and i agree that the 1:1 mapping is not very developer-friendly. developer-friendlyness is very important. - Stig On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Christian Stocker wrote: > > Speaking of the pear-CVS, i have one problem with it. As I understand it, > all files belonging to one Package are in a directory with the > Package-Name on the same Directory level and the actual directory > structure for installing is described in package.xml. > so, for the DB-Package, we would have > > /DB > ->DB.php > ->common.php > ->oci8.php > ->storage.php > ->STATUS > ->package.xml > > But i think, it would be better if we had the actual Dir-structure also in > the CVS. > /DB > ->DB.php > ->package.xml > ->/DB > ->common.php > ->... > > Because now, when i check out a package from the cvs, i have to build the > directory structure (if i don't use the pear installer), and then, if i > want to check in, i have to copy the files back to the flat structure. > Not very developer-friendly ;) if i had the dir-structure already in the > cvs i could only point my include_path to that and it woulld work... and > furthermore, with the actual scheme, it's not possible to have the same > filename twice in different directories. I think, it's not a big problem, > to make the installer to work with that scheme (it does not at the > moment). > > The next problem is really not a big problem, just to avoid maybe some > further clashes, when pear gets bigger... > > the syntax in the package.xml: > <FileList> > <Dir>/</Dir> > <File>blabla.php</File> > <File>blabla2.php</File> > <Dir>/Next</Dir> > <File>hello.php</File> > </FileList> > > is in my point of view not very xml-like. It works maybe well with a > parser like expat, but with a dom-thingie or xsl you would have big > problems with that. Better would be > > <FileList> > <Dir path="/"> > <File>blabla.php</File> > <File>blabla2.php</File> > </Dir> > <Dir path="/next"> > <File>hello.php</File> > </Dir> > </FileList> > > or even <File name="hello.php"/>, but that's really a detail :) > > What do you think? is it already to late for changes like that? > > chregu > > > > On Yesterday, Stig Bakken wrote: > > > 1. we standardize the version tagging scheme (e.g. V_1_0_REL for the 1.0 > > release) > > > > 2. use thecurrentstable and currentdevel fields in the packages table to > > determine which tag to check out for each package. > > > > 3. add a parameter to make-packages that lets you choose whether to build > > stable or devel release tarballs, and maybe even a a snapshot mode that > > builds packages with the date as the version number, checking out the head > > revisions. > > > > - Stig > > On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, Martin Jansen wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 16:52:38 +0200 (CEST), Stig Bakken wrote: > > > > > > >but will this script check out the > > > >head revision of all files? what happened to release numbers? imho > > > > this script should check out a specific tag in each package, for > > > >example "STABLE". if the online packages are just head checkouts, > > > >we have a disaster on our hands soon :) > > > > > > I must admit that I didn't think much about this topic ;-). > > > Perhaps somebody has a good idea how to handle this? > > > > > > - Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > nam...christian stocker adr...bremgartnerstr. 66, ch-8003 zurich > pho...+41 1 451 6021 www...http://phant.ch/chregu > mob...+41 76 561 8860 ema...chregu@phant.ch > > > -- > PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, e-mail: pear-dev-unsubscribe@lists.php.net > For additional commands, e-mail: pear-dev-help@lists.php.net > To contact the list administrators, e-mail: php-list-admin@lists.php.net >