Re: binary packages
| From: | Greg Beaver | Date: | Wed, 08 Jun 2005 13:54:11 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: binary packages | ||
| References: | 1 2 | Groups: | php.pecl.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pecl-dev+get-2441@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Andrey Hristov wrote:
Hi Greg, Quoting Greg Beaver <cellog@php.net>: [snip]
This is a possibility. I'm much more concerned with the functionality at this stage. package.xml 1.0 didn't use underscores so I never considered it when designing 2.0. FYI, PEAR_PackageFileManager supports package.xml 2.0 now, in the 1.6.0a1 release, which should help with generation of package.xml files without needing to be able to read the tag names. Also, just to be clear: breaking BC for cosmetic reasons probably won't happen at this stage, because it will cause all kinds of issues such as needing to pull every release that has ever used package.xml 2.0 and re-releasing with the new format, breaking local installations of any package that uses package.xml 2.0, and so on. If I make people do that because I added underscores for readability, there might be a lynch mob :). Greg<os> <name>darwin</name> </os> </installconditions> <install name="foo_darwin.so" as "foo.so"/> </extbinrelease>The tag names are a bit unreadable. Wouldn't be better to separate the words with underscore?