On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:42 AM, James Rayner<[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:52 AM, Pierre Schmitz<[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I just wondered if we should just remove pear from our php package. Pear is a >> package manager for php and as such bypasses pacman. Using pear is not a >> great >> idea imho; you might have conflicts on php updates and files that are not >> tracked by pacman. (using -f might break things here) >> >> People who still want to use pear instead of pacman could provide a PKGBUILD >> in AUR for this. >> >> What do you think? >> >> And btw: pear itself does not seem of "high quality"; did anyone try it with >> E_ALL|E_STRICT etc.? > > Unless it's an issue, not building, or otherwise broken (ie a > technical reason), I'd say leave it in. We've got easy_install for > python, cpan for perl, etc. > > It's up to the users to decide whether to use pacman or otherwise - > not our responsiblility.
I think I agree with James here. What about the people who WANT to use PEAR? I know there are some people who prefer easy_install for python.
