[arch-dev-public] remove pear from php package?
Hi all, I just wondered if we should just remove pear from our php package. Pear is a package manager for php and as such bypasses pacman. Using pear is not a great idea imho; you might have conflicts on php updates and files that are not tracked by pacman. (using -f might break things here) People who still want to use pear instead of pacman could provide a PKGBUILD in AUR for this. What do you think? And btw: pear itself does not seem of "high quality"; did anyone try it with E_ALL|E_STRICT etc.? -- Pierre Schmitz, http://users.archlinux.de/~pierre
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 17:52, Pierre Schmitz<pierre@archlinux.de> wrote:
Hi all,
I just wondered if we should just remove pear from our php package. Pear is a package manager for php and as such bypasses pacman. Using pear is not a great idea imho; you might have conflicts on php updates and files that are not tracked by pacman. (using -f might break things here)
People who still want to use pear instead of pacman could provide a PKGBUILD in AUR for this.
What do you think?
And btw: pear itself does not seem of "high quality"; did anyone try it with E_ALL|E_STRICT etc.?
This sounds reasonable to me. PEAR classes could/should be packaged it is the case with perl/python/ruby/lua/etc. packages BTW I've never had to use PEAR in any of PHP projects I do at my job, I wonder how broad its usage among PHP developers is. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
On Sunday 05 July 2009 20:08:01 Roman Kyrylych wrote:
This sounds reasonable to me. PEAR classes could/should be packaged it is the case with perl/python/ruby/lua/etc. packages BTW I've never had to use PEAR in any of PHP projects I do at my job, I wonder how broad its usage among PHP developers is.
Most projects bundle their own copy of pear classes if they use them. I only used phpunit from pear. I just put a pkgbuild for it into AUR. Even the pear website itself recommonds to use pyrus instead of pear to install packages. -- Pierre Schmitz, http://users.archlinux.de/~pierre
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:52 AM, Pierre Schmitz<pierre@archlinux.de> wrote:
Hi all,
I just wondered if we should just remove pear from our php package. Pear is a package manager for php and as such bypasses pacman. Using pear is not a great idea imho; you might have conflicts on php updates and files that are not tracked by pacman. (using -f might break things here)
People who still want to use pear instead of pacman could provide a PKGBUILD in AUR for this.
What do you think?
And btw: pear itself does not seem of "high quality"; did anyone try it with E_ALL|E_STRICT etc.?
Unless it's an issue, not building, or otherwise broken (ie a technical reason), I'd say leave it in. We've got easy_install for python, cpan for perl, etc. It's up to the users to decide whether to use pacman or otherwise - not our responsiblility.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:42 AM, James Rayner<iphitus@iphitus.org> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:52 AM, Pierre Schmitz<pierre@archlinux.de> wrote:
Hi all,
I just wondered if we should just remove pear from our php package. Pear is a package manager for php and as such bypasses pacman. Using pear is not a great idea imho; you might have conflicts on php updates and files that are not tracked by pacman. (using -f might break things here)
People who still want to use pear instead of pacman could provide a PKGBUILD in AUR for this.
What do you think?
And btw: pear itself does not seem of "high quality"; did anyone try it with E_ALL|E_STRICT etc.?
Unless it's an issue, not building, or otherwise broken (ie a technical reason), I'd say leave it in. We've got easy_install for python, cpan for perl, etc.
It's up to the users to decide whether to use pacman or otherwise - not our responsiblility.
I think I agree with James here. What about the people who WANT to use PEAR? I know there are some people who prefer easy_install for python.
On Monday 06 July 2009 23:07:16 Aaron Griffin wrote:
Unless it's an issue, not building, or otherwise broken (ie a technical reason), I'd say leave it in. We've got easy_install for python, cpan for perl, etc.
It's up to the users to decide whether to use pacman or otherwise - not our responsiblility.
I think I agree with James here. What about the people who WANT to use PEAR? I know there are some people who prefer easy_install for python.
What if it would be as easy as pacman -S php-pear to get it? -- Pierre Schmitz, http://users.archlinux.de/~pierre
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 16:07 -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:
I think I agree with James here. What about the people who WANT to use PEAR? I know there are some people who prefer easy_install for python.
What about CPAN? That's still included in the perl package also, that's also a tool that installs perl software without pacman knowing about it. I maintain some debian machines with php on it, sometimes I need a pear module and just do "pear install <module I need>". I keep my pear installation up2date using the pear tool. The fact that apt-get overwrites them on every upgrade doesn't mean I don't use "pear upgrade-all" after that. IMHO a basic set of pear packages hould be included in the PHP package, the rest can be managed by either pear, or if the user really insists on it, pacman packages.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 17:25, Jan de Groot<jan@jgc.homeip.net> wrote:
The fact that apt-get overwrites them on every upgrade doesn't mean I don't use "pear upgrade-all" after that.
Personally I don't think this is too relevent. Any modules should be kept up to date in arch anyway, we don't wait around like debian does. CPAN also installs the modules to a different location than pacman does, so it doesn't generate conflicts.
participants (6)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Daenyth Blank
-
James Rayner
-
Jan de Groot
-
Pierre Schmitz
-
Roman Kyrylych