Re: PECL versioning

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Pierre Joye wrote: > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 3:11 AM, Steph Fox <steph@zend.com> wrote: > > > 'More flexible' in what way? That doesn't make much sense in a Windows > > context, and all this conversation's been about Windows - nothing else. > > > > Basically the idea was to put up binaries built against 5.2.6 and then work > > on automating new release builds, because it doesn't make a lot of sense to > > start from 0 when you can start from 200, and because pecl4win is already > > there as a fallback. So yes I'd agree, come together and do plans and all > > that when we're talking about the other issues, like: automated builds, CVS > > branches in PECL, etc etc etc oh and fixing the website. But for now... if > > the issue of versioning could be resolved simply with an agreed standard for > > PECL projects, we'll all benefit straight away. > > Oye... make it easy please :) > > Summary: > > - Add the definition of PHP_[EXTENSIONNAME]_VERSION in > php_[extensionname].h to the coding standard > - Add <tasks:replace from="@package_version@" to="version" > type="package-info" /> for the php__[extensionname].h file Sorry, but I don't think this is needed. Developers can just update this constant themselves when then package. I've been doing that with Xdebug for years without any problems. I don't like automagic changes of files on packaging, even more because with this idea the version would show up like @package_version@ during development. Instead of trying to handle devs like children and forcing this crap, just teach them to fill in the correct details. > - The RC file? generate it from the package should do it That should be fairly trivial of course. Derick -- Derick Rethans http://derickrethans.nl | http://ezcomponents.org | http://xdebug.org