Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:107230 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 33608 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2019 14:29:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp3.php.net) (208.43.231.12) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 19 Sep 2019 14:29:25 -0000 Received: from php-smtp3.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp3.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EADC2D20C7 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 05:07:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp3.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Virus: No Received: from mail-pl1-x641.google.com (mail-pl1-x641.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::641]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp3.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 05:07:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x641.google.com with SMTP id y10so211286plp.2 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 05:07:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=basereality-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=GuXB9OP/f7H2MTrBKeZFRBdV9n2y/1Nc7bHiKINULxQ=; b=p5eMzAARgH32bkxjYs4Sge6IspkG3N7Lnk0uDTOGYOqqe6XFlb+Y2Gfln9GSG8JNfR O238BktkzwYN9MH0NSxhttkeUEHU+idjKCWSwLTrrznnYnt7JMevIraSecQNWCfq3fTN YQeNk2HlUva9AzOirTvZPt4cR39GsklhSZ0LoKfBjHPoSI9h79z60t7LZd11y/5tVk0i APOvMrlqOUftCRUkedZQhy5yg63p9LjclK4uh3vVJwdPVDw63ZD1rps/vQ5UATfsZlno 0I+1DZGEiu2rtpMLT/KYeJTkw13f9E/6NlxRKTxSp/roxRBGO9LnucyBIEtyU6h3LVHV y+3A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=GuXB9OP/f7H2MTrBKeZFRBdV9n2y/1Nc7bHiKINULxQ=; b=bsqniZrCNxXgWt6ZKiMMCE+ACSESy3fpuyIp8Zh9kgyOKQkuelRIdPUsN22ctlbNrL NZPxtrqePgmu8Ml2fKBa9iAtqpRRWySSXERuZ+VWq7DWA14FrmPzAxYPZ1y1d+1buk8l pYtY9T5A+Bn5Lj+fsAPoiv9EJtBX8U6pmN64e9OY6Y6zOHDdUO4tfykmO4elJ0AifYmn f7bxQKOAslnjFJoTs18y/peJQsG8fICL6BlD0Qeqf+q4YvOP9EcSqUjQEeJ5lNZcN4bF 3UJy3hhkra6mCDcq3ByY1KA90ptfpSWFw30vALPb0KB6u+XPOVou5uNlSV+2diBbYzNv APkw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWiAwZgesb1vHlFxpQI6ywhcINjOcb2ufER7R6VGj6yNlCPCVui erbTIs+F2ZKq/gTBRVOnJIf6haiq3n6/GVtOYMSoUA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwxIsp/v98jDsMfYRfrcfomPbHQ66Dz84BJU1Z/SkT8IvM8DSi7IVOAPkOidkp43r0fjBWzvfFPnx7Uv4eS/tU= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:860b:: with SMTP id f11mr9488454plo.48.1568894821304; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 05:07:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <61ab41b2e7eb74c23bc0dc4a307d1045863966fc.camel@schlueters.de> <51d2093d-7ad5-c50e-0a33-1b088b891223@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 13:06:50 +0100 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?Q?Johannes_Schl=C3=BCter?= Cc: "Christoph M. Becker" , Arnold Daniels , PHP internals , Anatoliy Belsky Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Envelope-From: Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Changing PECL signup flow. From: Danack@basereality.com (Dan Ackroyd) Johannes wrote: > I think we should clarify what PECL actually is. > Without such a tool the need for a central distribution > site goes away I think there is still a large amount of value in PECL being 'merely' a distribution channel. My understanding is that downstream maintainers find it far easier to pickup versions from pecl than picking up individual repos. Plus of course it helps prevent extensions from disappearing. Johannes wrote: > from php-src point of view PECL is the graveyard > where extensions go for their final rest. =E0=B2=A0_=E0=B2=A0 Some of us maintain extensions on PECL quite happily thank-you. /s Seriously though, I think one of the main reasons why that view isn't totally wrong is that it's just been so hard for people to create pecl accounts that it's caused people to not publish their extensions there. Arnold Daniels wrote: > As an alternative, maybe we can create a new channel I strongly support anyone that wants to work on that, particularly since PECL is deprecated due to it's reliance on PEAR. However that really needs to be a separate topic than just fixing the immediate problem of the PECL signup process being too much of a gate-keepered experience currently. Johannes wrote: > Or is ffi the big push for those 95% making pecl actually mostly obsolete= , I also haven't had time to investigate FFI yet, however the feedback I have seen from other people is that there are quite a few issues around the ecosystem when trying to use it, that are going to limit how useful it is for a while. But that is a conversation that other people will need to pickup. I'm not sure the idea I suggested actually requires an RFC, and I'm in the middle of a few too many things to pursue it right now, but I've added it to the list at: https://github.com/Danack/RfcCodex/blob/master/project_coordination.md#smoo= ther-pecl-signup-process so it doesn't get forgotten. cheers Dan Ack