Re: [PEAR-QA] imminent release of PEAR 1.3.4

Hi Greg & QAddicts,
You will say I play the fool again, but someone should do it.
I really want to help testing this 1.3.4 in this new 2005.
Fool as I am, I could succeed to cvs -co, got your tgz the same.
What should I do next ? Install how ? Some docs ?
Should I roughly rename '/usr/share/pear' to '/usr/share/no_pear'
and run some install ?
(just to keep that lovely pear as it is)
Bloody testers are also needed, so excuse my poor understanding.

As I get little concern in getopt,
why are you still requiring the pear package
and not use the kernel getopt() from PHP above 4.3 when it's there ?

En tout cas,
Bonne année !
--
bertrand Gugger (toggg)
You wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Would you please run some standard tests with CVS of pear-core, branch
> PEAR_1_3?
>
> 1) install from remote package (pear install Packagename)
> 2) install from local package.xml
> 3) install from local package.tgz
> 4) upgrade with all 3 above
> 5) install --alldeps with a package that has both
> 6) install --onlyreqdeps
> 7) uninstall
> 8) try packaging a package that uses a rel="not" dependency
> 9) try packaging a package that uses a rel="ne" dependency
> 10) try packaging a valid package and installing it
> 11) try installing a pecl extension
>
> Any other necessary tests you can think of.  Make sure there are no
> errors in the package-PEAR.xml that I have missed, and so on.
>
> Thank you,
> Greg
>

bertrand Gugger wrote:
> Hi Greg & QAddicts,
> You will say I play the fool again, but someone should do it.
> I really want to help testing this 1.3.4 in this new 2005.
> Fool as I am, I could succeed to cvs -co, got your tgz the same.
> What should I do next ? Install how ? Some docs ?
> Should I roughly rename '/usr/share/pear' to '/usr/share/no_pear'
> and run some install ?

That would work fine.

> As I get little concern in getopt,
> why are you still requiring the pear package
> and not use the kernel getopt() from PHP above 4.3 when it's there ?

I don't maintain Console_Getopt, and since there are no problems with
the current implementation, I consider it a waste of (my) time to divert
energies from stuff that is known to not work.  Perhaps you can convince
Andrei to implement this.

Greg