What I was thinking (in an quite old discussion, during initial PHP Guidelines writing) is now reality
According to PHP Guidelines, pear extension must be named php-pear-<extension>.
That's ok for standard pear.php.net channel.
With non standard channel we can encounter conflicts.
llaumgui is working on submitting ezComponents for review. http://ezcomponents.org/
For example, one of the extension is Mail and php-pear-Mail already exists.
My proposal is : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PHP
With this proposal, ezComponents will be named php-ezc-<extensionname>
Comments ? Remi.
for me is ok, go ahead
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Remi Collet Fedora@famillecollet.com wrote:
What I was thinking (in an quite old discussion, during initial PHP Guidelines writing) is now reality
According to PHP Guidelines, pear extension must be named php-pear-<extension>.
That's ok for standard pear.php.net channel.
With non standard channel we can encounter conflicts.
llaumgui is working on submitting ezComponents for review. http://ezcomponents.org/
For example, one of the extension is Mail and php-pear-Mail already exists.
My proposal is : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PHP
With this proposal, ezComponents will be named php-ezc-<extensionname>
Comments ? Remi.
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 07:51:21PM +0100, Remi Collet wrote:
What I was thinking (in an quite old discussion, during initial PHP Guidelines writing) is now reality
According to PHP Guidelines, pear extension must be named php-pear-<extension>.
That's ok for standard pear.php.net channel.
With non standard channel we can encounter conflicts.
llaumgui is working on submitting ezComponents for review. http://ezcomponents.org/
For example, one of the extension is Mail and php-pear-Mail already exists.
My proposal is : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PHP
With this proposal, ezComponents will be named php-ezc-<extensionname>
Comments ? Remi.
Is it possible/does it make sense to coinstall php-pear-Foo and php-ezc-Foo or are they mutually exclusive?
Or rephrased, if another package requires Foo, can both serve up? If this is the case then we probably need to think about solutions with virtual dependencies.
Axel Thimm a écrit :
Is it possible/does it make sense to coinstall php-pear-Foo and php-ezc-Foo or are they mutually exclusive?
No.
Or rephrased, if another package requires Foo, can both serve up? If this is the case then we probably need to think about solutions with virtual dependencies.
Both provides same goals : a class to manage mail in PHP
But both implementation are really different. - php-pear-Mail only provide simple "send" methods - php-ezc-Mail provide (complex) send and receive methods
Of course a projet should use only one.
Remi.
Remi Collet wrote:
My proposal is : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PHP
With this proposal, ezComponents will be named php-ezc-<extensionname>
Sounds fine to me, and is consistent with php-ZendFramework-*. Where will the files be installed in the filesystem and what will a "require" statement look like for code which needs ezC?
Tim
Tim Jackson a écrit :
Sounds fine to me, and is consistent with php-ZendFramework-*.
:) (even is ZendFramework doesn't use pear mechanism, AFAIK)
Where will the files be installed in the filesystem
/usr/share/pear (as for all pear extension) /usr/share/pear/ezc (as define in package.xml provided upstream)
and what will a "require" statement look like for code which needs ezC?
Requires: php-pear(components.ez.no/Mail)
or, of course (but probably a lesser solution)
Requires: php-ezc-Mail
Remi.
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Axel Thimm -
itamar -
Remi Collet -
Tim Jackson