Rob Allen has a new post to his site sharing the work he's done to get PHPUnit managed with Phive, an "installation and verification environment" that is used in the installation of Phar archives.

I recently came across the Phive project and have had a play with it. Phive is part of phar.io and is intended to manage development tools such as PHPUnit in preference to using Composer's dev dependencies. The main advantages of Phive are that it uses the phar file of the tool and only keeps one copy of each version rather than downloading a new copy into each project.

He starts off talking briefly about how the tool works and what it's doing behind the scenes to download the phar archives requested. He shows how to define a target directory, install for global use and explains how GPG signatures work into the installation process.

Related to his work on the Services_Trackback PEAR Package he worked on, Tobias Schlitt looks today in this new blog post at some of his more recent thoughts on trackback spam.

It's been a long while since I worked on my PEAR package Services_Trackback, mainly because I was much too busy with work and university. Nevertheless I made up my mind about how to solve the problem of the so-called trackback spam.

Taking for granted, that the idea should work, there are 2 main questions to answer: "How can a sender of a trackback be identified?" and "If and how must the trackback standard be changed to support the identification?" For question #1 there is a simple answer (IMHO): PGP/GPG (further on referred to as GPG, for simplicity).

He suggests that since there is already a "trust relationship" inherent in the system, a PGP/GPG setup might be the most flexible, easy-to-use, constantly adapting method for preventing one of the banes of bloggers' existences...

Related to his work on the Services_Trackback PEAR Package he worked on, Tobias Schlitt looks today in this new blog post at some of his more recent thoughts on trackback spam.

It's been a long while since I worked on my PEAR package Services_Trackback, mainly because I was much too busy with work and university. Nevertheless I made up my mind about how to solve the problem of the so-called trackback spam.

Taking for granted, that the idea should work, there are 2 main questions to answer: "How can a sender of a trackback be identified?" and "If and how must the trackback standard be changed to support the identification?" For question #1 there is a simple answer (IMHO): PGP/GPG (further on referred to as GPG, for simplicity).

He suggests that since there is already a "trust relationship" inherent in the system, a PGP/GPG setup might be the most flexible, easy-to-use, constantly adapting method for preventing one of the banes of bloggers' existences...