Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:80268 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 31095 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2015 11:36:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 8 Jan 2015 11:36:12 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=derick@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=derick@php.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 82.113.146.227 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: derick@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 82.113.146.227 xdebug.org Linux 2.6 Received: from [82.113.146.227] ([82.113.146.227:45881] helo=xdebug.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 52/01-21915-BAB6EA45 for ; Thu, 08 Jan 2015 06:36:12 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by xdebug.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75D64E202D; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 11:36:05 +0000 (GMT) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 11:36:05 +0000 (GMT) X-X-Sender: derick@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl To: Stanislav Malyshev cc: francois@tekwire.net, 'Pierre Joye' , 'Sara Golemon' , 'Benjamin Eberlei' , 'PHP Internals' In-Reply-To: <54ADD333.3070208@gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <54AAF98B.4020709@gmail.com> <001b01d029bb$fa687fc0$ef397f40$@tekwire.net> <54AC2D12.7060209@gmail.com> <54ADD333.3070208@gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Extension Prepend Files From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) On Wed, 7 Jan 2015, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > > There is currently no way to install an extension and a PHP library > > package at the same time. "pecl" can't install PHP libraries, and > > Why it needs to be "at the same time"? I don't see any use case where > it would matter if you run one command or two commands to install it. Well, I do. And it's not *just* installing two packages. It is also adding extra lines to every script to load code that your extension *depends* on. I would pick an "pecl install" over a "pecl install this", "composer install that", "add a few lines to a script" as an installation method anytime. > > "composer" can't install extensions. And even if it did, keeping the > > versions in sync is not easy at all. Only way to solve this properly > > is > > It seems to me you're reinventing packaging systems. I want to solve the issue where I have a PHP library that is tied to C code, without having to deal with random tools and depencies for no reason. PHP packaging systems don't do that. > I don't see why we should invent our own and why our own should take > form of putting PHP code into compiled binaries (yet less why suddenly > it is the "only way"). Many languages have extension systems and > packages that involve binaries - Perl, Python, Ruby, etc. AFAIK none > of them puts source code into binaries. Most of those languages don't depend as heavily on parts written in C though. They will only break out to C for specific reasons. PHP extensions are the other way around. It's almost always C, but some opt to also use some PHP to make developement faster. cheers, Derick