[dev] Constructive Criticism/Venting

[Mathieu Parent]

2014-03-12 12:44 GMT+01:00 Remi Collet <remi at fedoraproject.org>:
> Le 12/03/2014 08:07, Michael M Slusarz a écrit :
>>
>> My take on the situation is that, for all intents and purposes, PEAR is
>> dead.

> I agree PEAR as a library is dead, it kills itself.

I agree.

>
> But PEAR as an installer is still alive as an installer, even is some
> projects move to "tarball" distribution (and composer) such as

Yes.

> sabredav,

yes. But they never had.

> symfony (pear channel exists but is broken)

It's not dead, one is dead (http://pear.symfony-project.com/), but the
other one is alive (http://pear.symfony.com/)

> phpunit (pear channel is now only used to distribute the phar version), ...

No, it has the latest versions (http://pear.phpunit.de/ has 4.0.6,
released a day ago).

> PEAR is the only one to support system-wide installation.
>
> AFAIK, PEAR is still used by downstream distribution (ex: Fedora and
> EPEL, Debian, ...), so download stat for pear package is probably not
> revelant in most case.
>
> Yes, switching to "tarball" packaging in downstream will be a huge work
> (well... horde is still not fully approved in fedora... after >1 year)
> and I have start working on this switch for phpunit stack.
>
> But to be pragmatic, what IMHO we really expect from upstream, more than
> the installation method is
> - clean component life cycle (versioning, ...)
> - clean dependency description (php, extension, other component)
> - downstream/upstream communication
>
> So while my heart cry "keep PEAR channel", I perfectly know this is
> something which is going to die, sooner or later.

I agree with you. But does keeping PEAR packages is hard for Horde
devs? If not, can you keep them?

Regards
-- 
Mathieu