about stability (upgrading pear...)
| From: | Alberto M | Date: | Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:55:55 +0000 |
| Subject: | about stability (upgrading pear...) | ||
| Groups: | php.pear.general | ||
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-general+get-9232@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
when i tried to upgrade Pear I get this:
admin:/usr/local/share/pear # pear upgrade PEAR
downloading PEAR-1.3b3.tgz ...
...done: 86,146 bytes
'xmlrpc' PHP extension is not installed
PEAR: dependencies failed
the strange thing is that xmlrpc support is tagged as experimental.
Thus, first question: how is possible to need an experimental PHP library ("Use at your own risk...") when installing main Pear package?
At least, it's a strange thing.
Largely, I would be able to use Pear in my production servers, but I ever think: is it safe or not? Should I upgrade safety or not? Which extensions are required for the most packages I often use?
Maybe -I'm talking as an application builder/mantainer not really as a tester, right?- I would be quite sure there are a group of stable packages which could be safetly plugged within my applications.
As I can see, PFC follows this principle, but I feel there's no difference on quality assurance in PFC rather than other pear libraries. Is it right?
So my purpose is: could you evidence a "pear core" or something like, that could be safetly used in live applications, maybe in a way of "some-sort-of-guaranteed-package"? Would be useful to test the core in a QA environment, like PHP self use with QA team.
I suppose this doesn't happen today, but what I mean about _core_ is slightly different than what's in the manual.
How do you feel about it? I'm really interested about this way of developing, but I became dubtful looking at the growing amount of packages that complicate our life since one don't follow much closely Pear development. Well, I think also documentation should help and be written following a "what-user-would-do" method, like you did for DB classes.
I mean, it's not a matter of alfa/beta/stable, but of which libraries are "core", intended as "most closely packages" or "most well developed/patched/TESTED" or whatever. It's a nuance that I feel important.
If I am wrong in something, please correct me, since I'm not a great PEAR user, but I'd like.
However, I appreciate about the work you're doing and I'll go on using Pear! ;-)
Bye, Alberto.
--
"Imagination is more important than knowledge"