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.

FWIW when php-openid was first packaged the then actual version was in pear. I don't know why it was removed, but one of the TODO items upstream was to get it back in officially.

OpenID review is already going on and i am a bit impatient getting oauth also in ;-)

Suggestions?

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.

May be PHP Packaging wiki page[3] requires some update regarding this.

If the FPC agrees, then the technology vs collection nomenclature should be added to clarify.

Thanks.

[1] http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=500 [2] http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=512 [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/PHP