I too am only using some components from Zend Framework. With the tarball, I'm forced to deploy the entire library and weed out the components I don't need. That is too much work for deployment, and fault prone.
-----Original Message----- From: Michael Gauthier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: January 30, 2007 5:19 PM To: fw-general@lists.zend.com Cc: Nathan Fredrickson Subject: RE: [fw-general] PEAR Channel Distro At silverorange we use some elements from the Zend Framework already. All our other code is managed through PEAR channels (both ours and PEAR's) and we'd love it if Zend Framework was also available through a PEAR channel. This would make keeping up-to-date with Zend a lot easier from our perspective. -Mike On Tue, 2007-30-01 at 10:50 -0700, Michael Caplan wrote: > Hi Andries, > > I would think that distributing via a PEAR channel would help reach a > broader public. Was that not the case? > > Not to beat what I assume is a long dead discussion, I don't see the > connection between a need to release the whole codebase in steps VS > making each component available as separate PEAR packages. > > Best, > > Michael > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Andries Seutens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: January 30, 2007 12:05 PM > To: Michael Caplan > Cc: Richard Thomas; fw-general@lists.zend.com > Subject: Re: [fw-general] PEAR Channel Distro > > Hello, > > The priority reason for setting up the PEAR channel, was to reach a > broader public, that would be testing our code, and thus gather more > feedback. > > There have been numerous discussions about this in the past, and there > has been decided to stick to the idea of code reales of the whole > codebase in steps. We do not want to end up with "Zend Framework 1.0" > being a mix of stable and "not-so-stable" components. > > Best regards, > > Andriesss > > > Michael Caplan schreef: > > Being very new to Zend FW, I'm curious why a maintained and segmented > > (IE: each Zend FW component like Zend_Filter available independently) > > PEAR distribution hasn't been a core distribution method. It seems > like > > it would be a logic step considering that Zend FW fits nicely into > PEAR > > packages. It also, for myself any I don't see why not others too, > would > > make deploying and managing Zend FW much easier. > > > > I saw that there was a discussion on this a while back, but this > > initiative was obviously abandoned. > > > > Michael > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Richard Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: January 30, 2007 11:19 AM > > To: fw-general@lists.zend.com > > Subject: Re: [fw-general] pear.zfdev.com vs errors > > > > Errors have been disabled for that domain, As to updates will have to > > see if the person who did .15 for us can put together a more recent > > package > > > > On 1/30/07, Michael Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> For what it is worth, I'd rather a PEAR distribution of Zend FW. It > >> would be much more convenient installing and managing a series of > Zend > >> PEAR packages, then a tarball of everything. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Michael > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Andries Seutens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: January 30, 2007 9:45 AM > >> To: Daniel O'Connor > >> Cc: fw-general@lists.zend.com; Richard Thomas > >> Subject: Re: [fw-general] pear.zfdev.com vs errors > >> > >> Daniel O'Connor schreef: > >>> pear.zfdev.com <http://pear.zfdev.com> - does anyone > >>> > >>> 1. feel like switching off display errors on that box > >> > >> Not on the whole box, because it's a development box, not a > production > >> environment. Perhaps only on the "pear" virtual server. > >> > >> > >>> 2. feel like giving us an updated package there? > >> > >> An update would be nice, but I'm thinking that you might be the only > > one > >> who that was still aware of the pear packages for ZF ;). > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> > >> Andriesss > >> > >> > > > > > > > >
