On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 03:05:06PM +0200, Uwe Steinmann wrote: > 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. The current consensus among the php4 maintainers is that packages for PEAR modules ought to be called php-*, and packages for PECL modules (and extensions shipped with php4) ought to be php4-* and php5-* as appropriate. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature