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

Suggestions?

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

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

--
Regards,
Rakesh Pandit

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

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
>

--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

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.

Regards

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

On 13/07/2008, Remi Collet <Fedora@famillecollet.com> wrote:
[..]
>
> 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.
>

Yes.
If FPC agrees I think it is important that Packaging/PHP wiki has a
small entry to clarify this point.

--
Regards,
Rakesh Pandit

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging