[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: PHP packaging guidelines

On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 19:54 +0200, Remi Collet wrote:
> Andreas Thienemann a écrit :
> > And about the naming conflicts: It's possible. The pear and pecl projects 
> > are not sharing the same namespace. 
> You're right.
> > Thus a conflict could occur, even 
> > though I haven't looked into the matter if there are already conflicting 
> > names.
> >   
> I've look and don't see any conflict at this time.
> PECL packages could(should) probably drop the pecl  (php-foo) as some 
> extensions from core php has been dropped and put to pecl (mailparse, 
> with php 4.2  for ex.) and other pecl extensions has been included in 
> php main core tarball (pdo, with php-5.1 for ex.)

We might need to add some php-pecl() provides in the main php package.

> Only one extension in extras with  pecl : php-pecl-mailparse.
> Lot of extensions without pecl : php-mhash, php-mcrypt, php-tidy, 
> php-dbase...

There's always a little pain in doing standards after packages are
built. It's better that we do it now before its even worse.

Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Senior Sales Engineer || GPG ID: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]