[Fedora-packaging] Re: Regarding PHP guidelines -- pear packages

Remi Collet Fedora at FamilleCollet.com
Sun Jul 13 08:33:59 UTC 2008

Axel Thimm a écrit :
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 09:36:12PM +0530, Rakesh Pandit wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>    I had a confusion regarding PHP libraries which have a pending
>> draft at pear.php.net but haven't been yet included in pear. May we go
>> ahead packaging them as pear? Or package them as non pear PHP
>> libraries and wait for proposal to pass? Or it is upto packager?
>>       For example php-openid[1] or php-oauth[2] has a proposed status
>> for pear.
> I'm interpreting "pear" as used within the FP guidelines as a
> packaging technology and not as a name of a collection. Otherwise we
> would have to rename packages back and forth everytime there is a
> change in the pear collection.

I agree with Axel.

We already have some package php-pear-* which doesn't come from 
pear.php.net, but from other Channel (well php-channel-* guidelines is 
missing) which follow the PEAR convention.

I've just have a quick look to oauth
- no package.xml...
- no versionning...

So, i don't see this extension as a Pear package.
Upstream have a lot a work to do, i think.


More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list