[pkg-php-pear] pkg-php-tool and pear-channels interactions (Was: Pear channels in a single package)

David Prévot david at tilapin.org
Mon Oct 28 19:08:22 UTC 2013

Hash: SHA256


Le 21/10/2013 10:18, Mathieu Parent a écrit :
> 2013/10/20 David Prévot <david at tilapin.org>:

> I'm not sure that this is a good idea to pull the pear channel
> packages by default:
> - Most of the PECL packages come from the pecl.php.net website.
> - The channel list will change over time, and we'll get FTBFS between
> distributions

A versionned dependency on pear-channels could be needed in some
(backported) package, but it would make it generally a bit easier to
package PEAR packages if they all (usually) build-depend on the same set
of packages by default (i.e debhelper and pkg-php-tools).

I remember how hard it was to figure out that I needed a new channel the
first time I packaged a new PEAR package, and hope this pear-channels
package will ease a little bit the job. Not sure yet how to advertise
that correctly in the existing pkg-php-tools documentation.

>> that will also conveniently install a
>> shared pkg-php-tools-overrides file.
> I think that all overrides should be installed from the pkg-php-tools
> to avoid improper behavior.

Having overrides available at the higher level sounds like a good idea,
but I wonder how usual it is for packages from the official PEAR or PECL
channels to depend on a package from a non-official PEAR channel. In
other words, how many Debian package could benefit from an override
provided by pkg-php-tools that would not already build-depend on

Having the distinction between pkg-php-tools that just provide the tools
to build packages, and pear-channels that provides the data does not
seem totally worthless, but if you disagree, the current data from
pear-channels [0] can easily be imported into the common pkg-php-tools
override file.


An other advantage I can see in handling overrides in pear-channels, is
that they could usually be updated when adding a new channel, but they
they can also be added in a single debian revision of this light
non-native package (seems less scary to update and upload pear-channels
than pkg-php-tools).

Now that pear-channels made it into the archive, is it a good idea to
update the pkg-php-tools documentation directly to point at
pear-channels (and get rid of the channel.xml handling), or do you
prefer a bug report about it?



Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)


More information about the pkg-php-pear mailing list