Hello,
On 6/25/07, Tias <tias@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
(...)
1) Only show deprecated warnings of packages that are supplied as
argument to the command:
A user doesn't care that the package it uses depends on a deprecated
package. The developer himself should be warned about this when packaging.
I can see how this is an argument, I am not sure though if users of
"pear install" are indeed knowledgable enough to know what that means
and also deserve to know the status of a package.
2) Always install a dependency, even if its state is lower then the
current preferred state.
Once again, a user doesn't care what packages its software depends on,
if you have to install every non-stable package by hand... then your
scaring users away.
I don't agree with that at all. I know in pearweb's case it's not so
intuitive to go through the 10 packages that need to be installed - on
the other site a package state tells me a lot about the code and what
to expect from it.
(Disclaimer: I am not saying that -alpha hints at broken code or
anything like that, but -alpha for me is also subject to changes that
might have a side effect on other code, such as changes in a package's
API etc..)
I wouldn't want to override this for a certain package, I'd rather
have the installer behave as expected in all cases.
3) Show only one of 'Did not download (optional) depe...' and 'chan/pack
can optionally use...' and show it only for packages that are supplied
as argument.
Maybe a "--silcence" switch should be implemented? I for myself am
interested all those information.
4) Do not download and install a package if one of its dependencies can
not be installed.
This would give:
pear/pearweb did not download optional dependencies: pear/pearweb_index,
use --alldeps to download automatically
pear/pearweb requires package "channel://savant.pearified.com/Savant2"
(version >= 2.4.2)
pear/pearweb requires package "pear/HTML_TagCloud"
pear/pearweb requires package "pear/PEAR_PackageUpdate"
pear/pearweb requires package "pear/Net_URL2" (version >= 0.1.0)
pear/pearweb requires package "pear/Text_Diff"
pear/pearweb requires package "pear/MDB2_Schema" (version >= 0.6.0)
pear/pearweb requires package "pear/Services_Trackback" (version >= 0.4.0)
pear/pearweb requires package "channel://pearified.com/Role_Web"
Some dependencies can not be met, installation failed.
Before I start implementing, what are the other opinions about this ?
PS. If you see no reason to change this, because pearweb is an
expetionally complex example, well, packages like pearweb is what PEAR
is evolving towards for me: large scale full blown webapps in packages.
I see what you mean, since I also installed pearweb last week, but I
didn't find it so troubleing. So I am not saying this is right or this
is wrong. From a convenience perspective I very much agree - but
generalizing "the less output the better" also doesn't work.
For example, if you don't care about -alpha and -beta and would
install packages regardless, just adjust your local PEAR installation
and change the preferred state of packages before you install. And
make sure you use --alldeps which would probably solve all your other
pearweb issues.
Two Eurocents.
Cheers,
Till
| 
