Re: Re: results of work

Dan Scott wrote: > On 9/23/05, Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net> 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? >> > > > xmllint says imagick and cyrus are the guilty parties (lacking basic > well-formedness, anyways; if there's a DTD for package.xml it would > make a validity-testing script a little easier to run). Sure thing, you can choose from http://pear.php.net/dtd/package-1.0 http://pear.php.net/dtd/package-1.0.xsd Greg