[Fedora-packaging] Issue with PHP Naming guidelines

Christopher Stone chris.stone at gmail.com
Sat Jul 18 15:48:44 UTC 2009

On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 7:00 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III<tibbs at math.uh.edu> wrote:
> The PHP guidelines seem rather clear that PHP modules all require a
> "php-" prefix (with some types of modules requiring additional
> designations like "php-pear-").  Recently I noticed that two modules,
> phpFlickr and phpSmug, were both submitted and approved.  I held off
> on doing CVS for the latter; the reviewer's reasoning is as follows:
> "The php guidelines not withstanding, php-phpSmug struck me as
> unnecessary duplication and the same with php-phpFlickr."
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510979
> In general, I think it's the job of the reviewer to point out issues
> in the guidelines rather than to simply ignore them.  However, what's
> done is done (unless we want to force a rename of phpFlickr, which has
> already been imported) but I figured I'd ask if FPC wants to consider
> ammending the guidelines to cover this case, or suggest another name
> for this package.  Personally I'm not really inclined to an exception,
> because we have other packages like php-pear-PHP-CodeSniffer.noarch,
> php-pear-PHPUnit.noarch, php-pear-PhpDocumentor.noarch with no
> complaints about naming, but also phpTodo, phpMyAdmin and phpPgAdmin
> which are not modules but applications which happen to have PHP in
> their names.

I think these applications fall under the: "Note that web applications
that happen to be written in PHP do not belong under the php-*
namespace." part of the PHP guidelines.

These applications are not installing .so files in %{_libdir}/php, but
rather php files in %{_datadir}/php
Well atleast phpSmug, I did not look at phpFlickr.

Hope this clarifies things, please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Best Regards,

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list