Newsgroups: php.internals,php.pdo
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:35108 php.pdo:98
Return-Path: <helly@php.net>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 70074 invoked by uid 1010); 2 Feb 2008 19:44:41 -0000
Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net
Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 70053 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2008 19:44:41 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 2 Feb 2008 19:44:41 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=helly@php.net; sender-id=unknown
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=helly@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 85.214.94.56 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: helly@php.net
X-Host-Fingerprint: 85.214.94.56 aixcept.net Linux 2.6
Received: from [85.214.94.56] ([85.214.94.56:44949] helo=h1149922.serverkompetenz.net)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 1A/A2-41947-828C4A74 for <pdo@lists.php.net>; Sat, 02 Feb 2008 14:44:41 -0500
Received: from MBOERGER-ZRH.corp.google.com (202-168.79-83.cust.bluewin.ch [83.79.168.202])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by h1149922.serverkompetenz.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 083581B3524;
	Sat,  2 Feb 2008 20:44:37 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 20:44:06 +0100
Reply-To: Marcus Boerger <helly@php.net>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: <510220265.20080202204406@marcus-boerger.de>
To: "Steph Fox" <steph@zend.com>
CC: pdo@lists.php.net, "internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <00ce01c865c2$22f23aa0$c6fc1f3e@foxbox>
References: <00ce01c865c2$22f23aa0$c6fc1f3e@foxbox>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Fw: [PDO] [RFC] An Idea for PDO 2
From: helly@php.net (Marcus Boerger)

Hello Steph,

  all we need is to extend the PECL database with a license type field and a
CLA flag. Nothing else is required at that end. But we should still move as
much from php-src/ext to pecl as we can.

marcus

Saturday, February 2, 2008, 6:36:23 PM, you wrote:

>> If we're going the PECL refurbishment route, can we have some way of 
>> marking non-standard (as in CLA'd or differently-licensed) extensions to 
>> make contributors' lives easier and future discussions of this nature 
>> moot? Possibly even a separate CVS module that hooks into the PECL 
>> infrastructure?

> e.g. PECLA ? :)

> This seemed a bad idea to me last night, but actually it could work out well
> (assuming PECL itself is sorted out pronto). From the end user perspective 
> there'd be no distinction between PECL and PECLA extensions - both would 
> have pecl.php.net homepages and releases etc - but from the dev perspective 
> there's this whole marked area that you know you're going to need to sign 
> something if you want to contribute to it, and it would require a separate 
> checkout.

> It also has the advantage that we don't need to wait for PECL to be fixed 
> before opening up the repository module, although obviously how well it 
> works would be down to how well PECL resolves its problems.

> Thoughts, anyone?

> - Steph 




Best regards,
 Marcus