My name is David Hollis and I've been working on packaging a few PEAR
packages such as Auth and MDB2_Driver_pgsql (to complement the MySQL
driver). I am employed as an IT Security Professional and am actively
developing internal applications with PHP and PostgreSQL quite
I'm also interested in submitting a package for the Zend Framework in
the near future.
On Sat, 2008-06-21 at 19:48 +0200, Remi Collet wrote:
> I'm rather asking me if we should not disable "pear install"
> Ok : not all the pear extensions available in RPM.
> Using "pear install", you break your system coherency (file not owned
> any package)
Ok, point made, this was what I meant to say with "Or is trusting Pear
directly too risky?". It was just an idea for the long, long, long
I'm new to this list (and new to RPM packaging in Fedora too), so I
packaged 2 php-pear libraries which are currently under review by C.
Stone. This made me think about the usefulness of packaging Pear
libraries as RPM files...
A library installation using Pear is usually as simple as running "pear
install xxx" so it makes me wonder if we are reinventing the wheel by
creating RPMs. After all, pear = yet another yum-like repository with
many common commands.
The simple answer is that we need RPMs to provide an autonomous Fedora
installation DVD. But what about Pear RPMs which are not a dependency of
other programs shipped with Fedora? Wouldn't it be a good idea to add
Pear as a PackageKit backend? Or is trusting Pear directly too risky?