Description: ------------ the package should depend on the newer 0.6.0 beta version instead of the 0.6.0beta

is there an API change in Image_Text 0.6.0 vs 0.6.0 beta, or why does the version number matter (assuming that the PEAR installer should probably pick the most recent version anyway?). Please clarify. Thanks!

No feedback was provided. The bug is being suspended because we assume that you are no longer experiencing the problem. If this is not the case and you are able to provide the information that was requested earlier, please do so and change the status of the bug back to "Open". Thank you.

Thank you for your bug report. This issue has been fixed in the latest released version of the package, which you can download at http://pear.php.net/get/ set to 0.6.1 in package.xml for version 0.4.4

from my point of view the tag should be <recommended>0.6.1</recommended> instead of <recommended>0.6.1beta</recommended> becasue there is no version 0.6.1beta when you try to install it you got this: root@x2 ~ # ./pear.sh install pear/Image_Text-0.6.1beta Failed to download pear/Image_Text, version "0.6.1beta", latest release is version 0.6.1, stability "beta", use "channel://pear.php.net/Image_Text-0.6.1" to install install failed the release state of a package can't be specified in package.xml. it is controlled by the setting in the pear.ini which realease state someone prefer

strange, it worked for the previous release which stated "0.6.0beta". IIRC I introduced the specific version number back then because Image_Text was not stable yet and (back then?) the PEAR installer would install beta packages even if the PEAR settings expected stable versions. So the question is: what will happen if there is no version number at all in package.xml? I'll try to reproduce that on the weekend, maybe someone else can chime in, too.

interesting, https://pear.php.net/manual/en/guide.developers.package2.intro.php mentiones at least a RC1 version number (for <min>, however). Probably still best to remove the version number. I know there was a good reason to include it back then, but I can't remember what it was.

you are right with the example, but here the author labeled the version 1.3.0RC1 but you don't know if it is a stable, beta or alpha version in package.xml the version you specifie here ist the version the author gives regardless of the release state

Thank you for your bug report. This issue has been fixed in the latest released version of the package, which you can download at http://pear.php.net/get/ release 0.4.5 omits the recommended version number. Thanks!