On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 01:14:49PM +0100, Martin List-Petersen wrote: > On Thu, 2004-04-29 at 09:57, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/debian-devel-200402/msg01713.html > > > > started a thread about packaging php pear modules. I have a special > > interest but absolutely know knowledge about PHP and thus I'm not > > qualified to take over this job. > > And to bring that naming issue up again. Wouldn't it be best just to call them > libpear-something og libphp-something ? > > That is the naming scheme mostly used all over Debian (libapache, libperl, etc.) > > I think something like that probably should be defined, before they are introduced. There are already some packages from pear and pecl with a different naming scheme. The packages coming with php itself are just called php4-<name>. That would imply that packages from pecl should be using the same naming scheme. We may discuss whether 'pecl' should be part of the name. But actually an extension in pecl doesn't differ from one shipped with php. There will also be no risk of a name clash, because in the long run the php distribution will be a collection of php extension coming from pecl and the current php base. I vote for php-<name>. Packages in pear are written in php and in so far different from pecl packages. It might be a good idea to make this clear in the debian package name. libpear-<name> would be ok. Just my 2¢ Uwe -- MMK GmbH, Universitaetsstr. 11, 58097 Hagen Uwe.Steinmann@mmk-hagen.de Tel: +2331 840446 Fax: +2331 843920
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature