Re: zendframework package with or without bin package

[Raphael Geissert <atomo64+debian@gmail.com>]

sean finney wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 06:22:20PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>> > 
>> > I also want to rename the package to libphp-zendframework.
>> > 
>> 
>> biased answer: ugh, why?
>> That reminds me some of the libfoo-bar-moo-invent-something-else-here
>> packages we have in the archive.
> 
> the php policy draft recommends something along these lines as well,

I know, and it still mentions some php.ini munging IIRC.

> though in practice i think there are more php[N]-foo than there are
> libfoo-php[N]. while originally the intent was to seperate extensions and
> php libraries into two seperate naming conventions, it doesn't seem like
> this is realistic or worth the effort to try and police.

php<n>-foo has been being used for extensions
php-foo for pear modules (although there are a couple of non PEAR packages
using that naming IIRC)
libphp-foo and libfoo-php for libraries
and some weird combinations such as libfoo-php<n> (which I think are
extensions).

But frameworks are the exception: cakephp, horde3, and the odd case of
php5-symfony1.0.

Cheers,
Raphael Geissert