Composer was: Constructive Criticism/Venting
Jan Schneider <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.horde.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Zitat von Michael M Slusarz <[email protected]>: > Quoting Mathieu Parent <[email protected]>: > >> Hi all, >> >> 2014-03-12 8:07 GMT+01:00 Michael M Slusarz <[email protected]>: >>> Quoting Ralf Lang <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> On the pirum thing: This is going to be interesting for packagers. Does >>>> this mean that pear (in any form) is obsolete? This would mean >>>> distributions have to re-tool and rebase their rpm/debs on composer files. >>> >>> >>> My take on the situation is that, for all intents and purposes, PEAR is >>> dead. At least going forward. It exists to install legacy/existing >>> software. But no new projects/code is going to use it. (I've had some >>> patches accepted into PEAR months ago but there appears to be little/no >>> motiviation to release a new version.) >> >> Please don't remove PEAR packages and channel. We use them to make the >> debian packages. >> >>> Although, that being said, composer lacks a mean to install libraries >>> globally (at least I'm not aware of one). Which tools like npm and ruby >>> gems allow. So it's not a drop-in replacement for PEAR either. >> >> What is missing in composer: >> - clean way to install system-wide >> - related: a clean policy to avoid name clashes >> - minor: long description in composer.json (it only has short desc) >> - PECL support (i.e. you will still need PEAR for horde_lz4) >> >> We also need to adapt our tools, which may take some time. > > For the record ... I never said that we should abandon PEAR. I > don't see any reason to. We already have an established release and > installation process using PEAR and there's no reason to switch away > from this just to cater to the new flavor of the month. > > I am instead saying that we need to adapt our release process and/or > repository architecture to better handle integration with composer > as an alternative to PEAR. > > Packagist is becoming the new pear.php.net - and would be a > fantastic platform for us to distribute the modular libraries we > have that are way better than anything else out there. But > packagist has very strict requirements as to repo architecture, as > opposed to creating PEAR packages, so we unfortunately need to find > a way to accomodate the former since the latter can be worked around > from our end. +1 -- Jan Schneider The Horde Project http://www.horde.org/ https://www.facebook.com/hordeproject -- dev mailing list Frequently Asked Questions: http://wiki.horde.org/FAQ To unsubscribe, mail: [email protected]