Re: quick question about pearweb and package.xml 2.0

Martin Jansen wrote: (I wrote:)

How difficult do you think it might be to set up a php5 server that is independent of pear.php.net for a separate php5-only channel?

Technically this isn't really that hard: I'd suggest to set up another Apache instance on sth. like http://pear.php.net:81/. Or we are going to switch the whole website to PHP 5.

If it isn't too tough, then setting up PEAR_Server for this with an independent database would be a cinch.

Would this require people to subscribe to a special channel to get PHP 5-only packages?

The idea would be that these packages would be completely separate from php4 and php4/php5-mixed packages, as every php5-only package should be a rewrite to take advantage of the features. In other words, packages that have the identical API, and continue to use PEAR_Error should always be in pear.php.net channel. Packages that change their API, start to use exceptions, use interfaces, __call, and other php5-only features would be in the new channel. Incidentally, I see that the channel.xml needs to be able to specify a login port as well as the server address. I'll add this. So, yes, it would be a separate channel. Special isn't the right word though, it would be just like the regular pear.php.net channel, just a different name and different packages. It would give us a chance to add a required prefix too PEAR5_Log PEAR5/Log.php for instance. All channels should use an install prefix, otherwise the conflicts will grow exponentially until php gets its act together and implements packages. Greg