Re: results of work

Sara Golemon wrote: >>I was somewhat surprised at the number of invalid package.xml files in >>there. I added a ton of validation to package.xml 1.0 stuff - there are >>some serious problems that have been present in every PEAR version, like >>allowing PHP dependencies that just don't work, and so on. >> >> >> >Do you have a specific list of which package.xml files are invalid? > > No, I expect each developer will find out at "pear package" time - you all need to be using PEAR 1.4.0+ for packaging because of the much-improved validation. 1.4.1 will fix some critical validation bugs (from the packager's perspective) in every previous version. Fortunately, even if you don't feel like upgrading, pecl.php.net will catch the bugs on upload once it is upgraded to 1.4.1, so there is a safety net for the future. >I'll grab 1.4.1 when it's out and run some tests, but as for using >package2.xml in practice I'm actually starting to remove these files from my >packages since they're no longer required by pecl.php.net and maintaining >two package files (which contain the same information) is an unnecessary >piece of work in my case. > You should be aware that some of the benefits of a package2.xml will disappear as well. For instance, the ability to use any version number you feel like without a warning will go away. package2.xml will still be a requirement in the future, just not in the near future. Once we switch permanently to 1.4.0, pecl can completely sever from PEAR, allowing pecl/http and pear/http to co-exist peacefully, for instance. Greg