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(a)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.