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 :)
Pierre, that's exactly what I mean by 'fighting me'. I didn't 'finally understand' it, I proposed it, and now I'm actually working on it. This 'we' who have been discussing it for months if not years didn't bother to discuss it when I tried, or when Lukas tried, so I'm wondering now just where these discussions were held.
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 .
This is exactly where you're wrong. That's why I wrote to pecl-dev. I can't sanely rewrite a small chunk of the core build system to act differently depending on whether the package is a release or a snap, it needs to be the same for both. The version info for either kind of build needs to come from the same place.
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outdated libraries in our windows binaries).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.
You really should read the rest of that proposal...
- Steph