ports/86098: [PATCH] devel/pear-PEAR/Makefile.common: allow use by foreign packages

[Roman Neuhauser]

The following reply was made to PR ports/86098; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Roman Neuhauser <neuhauser at sigpipe.cz>
To: Antonio Carlos Venancio Junior <antonio at php.net>,
	freebsd-ports-bugs at FreeBSD.org, Pav Lucistnik <pav at FreeBSD.org>,
	bug-followup at FreeBSD.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: ports/86098: [PATCH] devel/pear-PEAR/Makefile.common: allow use by foreign packages
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 23:17:07 +0200

 # thierry at FreeBSD.org / 2005-09-15 22:15:33 +0200:
 > Le Jeu 15 sep 05 ? 14:26:50 +0200, Roman Neuhauser <neuhauser at sigpipe.cz>
 >  écrivait :
 > > # antonio at php.net / 2005-09-15 09:10:11 -0300:
 > > > Roman Neuhauser wrote:
 > > > ># antonio at php.net / 2005-09-14 19:15:46 -0300:
 > > > >>Roman Neuhauser wrote:
 > > > >>># antonio at php.net / 2005-09-14 18:14:16 -0300:
 > > > >>>>	SimpleTest isn't a PEAR package and I don't think it's a good idea 
 > > > >>>>	have "alien" packages using Makefile.common.
 > > > >>>
 > > > >>>  Why?
 > > > >>
 > > > >>	Because it's not part of the PEAR PHP Framework.
 > > > >
 > > > >    Is there a *technical* reason?
 > > > 
 > > > 	No. It's a semantical reason.
 > > 
 > >     Ok, putting Makefile.common aside for a while, what's everybody's
 > >     position on these two questions (simple yes/no will do):
 > > 
 > >     * should pear-compatible packages that don't come from pear.php.net
 > >       get installed under ${PEARDIR}?
 > 
 > If by "pear-compatible" you mean that it is listed by 'pear list' after
 > installation, yes, of course, it should be installed under ${PEARDIR} by
 > default.
 
     Hm, you see, I should've probably split that question:
 
     * when a software is available in the form of a pear compatible
       (read: installable with pear(1)) package besides a "normal"
       tar.gz, which should be preferred, supposing all other things are
       equal?
 
     * if the pear compatible packaging is used to port such an "alien"
       software, should it end up under ${PEARDIR}, or elsewhere (if so,
       where)?
 
 > If pear-compatible, it may have dependencies against "genuine"
 > pear packages, and the user won't have to add another path_include.
 
     Well, I guess we could use ${REINPLACE_CMD} to tweak php{,-cli}.ini
     in pkg-install and pkg-deinstall, similar to httpd.conf or to the
     mechanism used by PHP extensions.
  
 > >     * should pear-compatible packages that don't come from pear.php.net
 > >       get "PKGNAMEPREFIX=pear-"?
 > 
 > IMHO, no. For example, all Horde's pear-compatible packages (i.e. those
 > available under <http://cvs.horde.org/framework/>) are already prefixed
 > by "Horde_".
 
     But that's not PKGNAMEPREFIX. The Horde_ "prefix" is equivalent to
     "Archive_" in Archive_Tar.
  
 > Note: at this time, they are not installed by the FreeBSD ports system,
 > but this might change with future versions.
 > 
 >      * should pear-compatible packages belong to the pear CATEGORIES?
 > 
 > I personnaly don't care, but if we don't use "pear", a new category
 > "php" would be useful.
  
     You would need php4 and php5 IMO, and those two PKGNAMEPREFIXes are
     already taken for other purposes.
 
 > > > 	Keep in mind that you will have to chosse between pear-* ports 
 > > > structure or the PEAR CLI.
 
     The user should IMO be able to mix pear packages installed from
     ports and with pear(1) (I'm not sure I understand what you meant
     above).
 
 > >     Then I wonder why we bother with installing package.xml files.
 > 
 > I suppose that we could remove it after 'pear install', or even run
 > 'pear install' from ${WRKSRC}/package.xml: it's not even used by
 > 'pear info'.
 
     Uh, I'm afraid I got a bit confused. I'd have to look to remind
     myself of their use (if any).
 
     Thanks for the feedback Thierry.
 
 -- 
 How many Vietnam vets does it take to screw in a light bulb?
 You don't know, man.  You don't KNOW.
 Cause you weren't THERE.             http://bash.org/?255991