Re: PECL site improvements

On Fri, 2013-10-18 at 13:55 -0700, Hannes Magnusson wrote: > And its _awesome_. Its great that we finally can provide Windows > binaries and it "just happens". > > What is not great is if that addition rejects otherwise valid packages > and forces 300+ packages to change something to be able to create new > releases - not to mention, without a clear warning or headsup. > > Keep in mind PECL has been the place were we distribute _sources_. Not > binaries. So any additional requirements for binaries cannot break > existing infrastructure or force otherwise valid packages to change > their ways. > > I'll bet you the vast majority will include whatever things is > required for them to do binaries too, but we cannot blatantly forbid > them to upload normal source packages. The thing about version numbers has been "decided" >5 years ago but never was implemented. I think Steph Fox was the driver, but don't remember the details and don't find the thread. Having the license more explicit is a good thing, even though it is already registered in package.xml I'm not sure about enforcing it, though. Maybe a warning which has to be confirmed is enough to allow users to migrate. Not sure whether there is a good way for handling this on the website, though. johannes