-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Should type "library" be "project" in composer.json ? #2017
Comments
@BernhardBaumrock you mention:
I think this could be completely ignored? At least until ProcessWire is updated? I believe it's completely composer related and the fix to removing the warning would be what you suggest, so 👍 on this proposal. Although, from the looks of composer documentation, updating this to I wonder if this would affect the composer installer @teppokoivula ? |
Hi @elabx I'm afraid I don't understand what you say?! First you mention you think it can be ignored, then you mention you support it and the docs sound like "project" would be the right thing to choose. Thx for the link to the docs, which supports this request :) |
I propose that it can be ignored in the sense that it's not an error but a warning, and won't stop the project creation. |
Every warning is a potential bug. If not now then maybe in the future. So I think if possible it's good to not ignore warnings :) But yes, at the moment it works without issues with the warning. |
Yes, but in our case ProcessWire is a dependency — e.g. That's probably not very helpful to you, though, as it sounds like you are doing something completely different: trying to set up a new project using ProcessWire as the base. For our purpose "library" makes sense, since that's the way we use ProcessWire; as a library that is installed via Composer. That being said, I don't think that the type param really matters for our use case. Composer docs state that library "will copy the files to vendor", but at least based on very limited testing "project" seems to do the same by default. If it didn't, that would be a major breaking change.
It shouldn't: wireframe-framework/processwire-composer-installer is only relevant for package types "pw-module" and "pw-site-profile". TL;DR here is that 1) while I'm not aware of issues caused by changing type from "library" to "project", 2) for my specific use case "library" works well and may be what makes most sense, but it also seems that 3) for Bernhard's use case it seems that "project" would be the technically correct choice 🙂 |
I have added a PR to add ProcessWire to the list of CMS on the DDEV docs: ddev/ddev#6879
One user suggested to use composer to install PW. I tried it and got the following warning: ddev/ddev#6879 (comment)
Another user suggested to change the composer type from "library" to "project" to prevent this warning from showing up: ddev/ddev#6879 (comment)
I have no experience with using/installing ProcessWire from composer, so please use caution with this issue report as it might be nonsense! I think @teppokoivula is using composer to install PW?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: