Re: Re: package validation (was Re: [PEAR-QA] Re: PHP_Beautifier-0.0.6.1

On 4 Jun 2004 at 13:35, Greg Beaver wrote: > Tomas V.V.Cox wrote: > > > Stefan Neufeind wrote: > > > >> On 4 Jun 2004 at 14:32, Tomas V.V.Cox wrote: > >> > >> > >>> Stefan Neufeind wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> I didn't know that was even supported by the installer, maybe the > >>> solution is just to restrict version numbers to three digits in > >>> package.xml validation. > >> > >> > >> > >> Yes, to strictly restrict - no more and not less then three (afaik we > >> had a two-digit-number recently as well). Volunteers that have maybe > >> already worked on the package.xml-validation? Sounds like a quickfix > >> to me ... > > > > > > Well, is not trivial at all, remember that pear is not PEAR only. The > > goal of pear (the pear cmd) is to be an universal installer for software > > written in php, so we can't enforce our rules. Even with channels > > comming fast this point will become worse. > > > > The pear installer needs urgently, apart of a decent DTD validation, one > > of these two: > > > > a) Remove any PEAR coding standar rule that is hardcoded today. > > b) Provide something like a plug-in system which validates the > > package.xml fields according to the rules of each "channel" developers. > > You really need to check out the code in PEAR-1.4.0dev5.tgz, in > particular PEAR_PackageFile and PEAR_ChannelFile classes. A package > name validation regex is already in channel.xml and is fully supported > by the installer. > > Far better than doing this in pre- and post- scripts is to leverage the > existing power of polymorphism. Simply allow users to extend > PEAR_PackageFile, and redefine the validation of package version. Most > of this stuff should be server-side, and not in the pear packager, as > things like this tend to change as the political decisions change. Tomas, I was also thinking of doing this on the serverside. In my understanding you were talking about the verify-step that takes place when uploading a release. > The only other alternative is to add a field to the channel.xml for > describing version validation, which would be far more complex than I'm > willing to deal with. :-)) Stefan