Re: php-pear .rpm install format

On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Michael Dransfield wrote: > There is no reason why people couldn't make rpm's for the classes (or > collections of classes/the entire repository). I'm making rpm packages with pear classes for PLD Linux Distribution - these are avaible on ftp://ftp.pld.org.pl/ > The RPM could even just be a script which does 'pear install Blah', or > you could write a bash equivalent of the pear install command. no because files installed in that way won't be in rpm database. And integrity checking of system will fail. > MD5 checksums could easily be added at a later point, although at the > moment since all classes are downloaded from the same source, it is > unlikely that they will be contaminated at source (such a thing would > easilly be spotted any rectified). If downloads are contaminated through > local dns spoofing, then that is another security problem (not one of PEAR's) > AFAIK, pear checks for dependencies anyway But all of these dependencies are inserted manually - this is wrong, because many things are missing. Look at the dependencies in rpm-packages that I'm making for PLD - these are auto-generated... > Making PEAR depend on RPM in my opinion is bad because it ties PHP to > linux, whereas PHP is designed to run on ALL OS's. This is TheWrongWat(TM) - there should be separate class that makes that kind of things... > What about using debian packaging system? (I hear its better than RPM > anyway...) <flame-war> no - it isn't - rpms are better :) </flame-war> > >>That's because it is more flexible to install, it checks dependencies, > >>increase file security, etc. > >Do you know RPM-executable for Win? -- --------------------------------- pozdr. Paweł Gołaszewski --------------------------------- CPU not found - software emulation...