[Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: php-pear
Alias: php-pear

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295





------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com  2007-02-06 14:14 EST -------
(In reply to comment #14)
> I can't follow most of that.  The PEAR class *is* the PEAR installer: they are
> one and the same thing.  All the PHP tarball does to "install PEAR" is to run a
> .phar exactly like php-pear.spec does.

I had build the php package after removing the --without-pear option and it only
installed a /usr/bin/pear command (nothing under /usr/share/pear).

This led me to believe it was different than the .phar install.

I guess we are back to square one then.

Basically now it is just bootstrapping from php, or from php-pear package. 
Atleast with php we have a standard official tarball to compare against.

So what is the plan with 1.5.0 then?  Are you planning on including the web
and/or gtk installer or are these optional?  According to the web site they are
not optional.

I now understand your reasonging for the php-pear package and agree with you now
(even though I think it sucks, but that is pear's fault not ours).

This being said, there are _still_ major changes for the 1.5.0 package and these
should be done before I do the review.  I don't want to hear any B.S. about
having to review what is currently in CVS.

I also want to verify that the .phar does not bundle packages that already exist
such as Net-UserAgent-Detect package which is now required for the web
installer.  I'm hoping this wont be a problem if the web installer is optional
and not included in the .phar.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.