Re: PECL versioning

Hi Steph, On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 1:28 AM, Steph Fox <steph@zend.com> wrote: > > "I've been looking into the existing PECL setup, preparing the way for > > putting package release DLLs on pecl.php.net." > > ... which I've been talking about doing for the last three months. And? > > > > The rest talks about the DLL info information, and we have had a begin > > of a discussion about the needs... but heh, it's really boring to end > > in such discussions... Have a good night. > > It's boring because you're too busy fighting me to help solve the problem. What are you talking about? Fighting you? When did I fight you? I politely answered you, I invited you to join our efforts if you wish to. Is it possible at all to have a normal technical discussions between two human being without ending in such crappy comment? I would love to. > I > put up a request for brainstorming in the hope that someone might see it and > come up with a simple solution I hadn't thought of, but actually it doesn't > look as though there is one. > > The immediate problem I'm trying to resolve is release DLLs, pure and > simple. Not snapshots, not branches, nothing complicated, just this one > basic thing. This is exactly what we are discussing since months (if not years...) too and what the proposal described. I'm happy to see that you finally understood that working with cvs only is not the way :) > If this part goes well it becomes possible to start looking at > the rest, but at present (I think you'd agree) PECL is total anarchy.. and > it's not possible to do anything complicated when there's no underlying > common structure. So basically we need to find a way to implement a common > structure and make sure all PECL packages adhere to it. The package.xml file > already does this for package releases, but not for anything else... Everything can be done from the package releases, fetched from http://pecl.php.net . Obviously only if they have the config.w32 and if we use the correct dependencies (it is unacceptable to have outdated libraries in our windows binaries). These two important checks must be part of the process. It is a very good news then, you agree that we have to provide release based DLLs and not CVS based. Can you please (again, please!!) put your thoughts in the wiki so we can define some specs? I really fear to see some simple move not solving the real problems (ie, the DLL info is really the last of our issues, tbh :) We will do it anyway as soon as the gsoc is running (well, it'll be done even if the idea is not selected). Cheers, -- Pierre http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org