Re: Re: Channels

On Jun 18, 2004, at 3:43 PM, Alan Knowles wrote:

I'm begining to wonder if this may be necessary, Net_GeoIP begins to illustrate some of the issues. normally we would evolve Log2 (a PHP5 version of Log) for example, however if the PHP5 packages is introduced before a PHP4 one, how could it be dealt with?

we simply specify on package.xml that PHP 5 is required and include a verification on the dependencies, we already have this on the PHP beautifier package

Otherwise, using file extensions in the same package may be the only other way.. - .php4 & .php5 That would be pretty ugly...

Channels may be one way to solve this: - PEAR5 = php5 only packages.. with .php5 files... on a different release cycle with packages of the same name... Oh well I was only talking about PHP 5 only packages...

I've no idea if PHP4 will remain a popular target, or PHP5 focused packages will be the popular choice.... Realistically, I can not see my clients upgrading for a year or two (it would take an overwhelming need - like a serious bug in PHP4, to force this probably), so PHP5 only packages may be nice for some of my pet projects, they will probably remain difficult to use with everyday work.. Right this is why having all the PHP 5 only packages to require PHP version 5, specify it clearly to the users and keep a non stable status till PHP 5 gets stable seems a reasonable

solution. Cheers David Costa

Regards Alan Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 08:26:16 -0400 davey@php.net (Davey) wrote:

Hey, I have added an idea on channels to the wiki, please check it out :) http://pear.dnsalias.net/index.php?area=PearQA&page=PearQAideas

I do not see the point to create a php5 only channel. This is the role of the dependencies not of the channels. --Pierre

-- Can you help out? Need Consulting Services or Know of a Job? http://www.akbkhome.com -- PEAR QA Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php