Re: RFS: libzendframework-php
Andrea Giardina wrote:
>> I meant on the report; there are copyright and licence issues in some of
>> the files.
> I read your copyright notes in svn and i found all copyright problems
> in tests and demos but i deleted these directory in my first package
> release so I deleted also copyright notices. Now I'm going to package
> also test files so I'll restore some of that in copyright info.
Then why doesn't the package version, package directory, and copyright file
reflect those changes?
>
>
>> Btw, that package naming schema is used by perl but not php. IMHO it
>> would be better to use zend-framework or if you really insist:
>> libphp-zenf-framework.
> For the naming I used the PHP Policy Draft 4.1
>
http://webapps-common.alioth.debian.org/draft-php/html/ch-php-libs.html#s-php-libs-naming
> This document is valid or outdated? If this is correct probably the
> best name is libzend-framework-php
As you can see, that section has several 'XXX' in front of those self
questions, which I think you can understand that it means that there's no
current policy on php packages naming.
Quickly greping apt-status there are:
13 packages using the libphp-foo naming convention
3 packages using the libfoo-php naming convention
0 packages using the php-pear-foo naming convention
0 packages using the libpear-foo-php naming convention
And after all, that section is meant for PEAR packages, and the Zend
Framework isn't.
>
>> [1] And there's a patch that is needed for one the pdf generation tests
>> which is in SVN.
> Uhm... the patch seems to be for the demo pdf
s/tests/demo then :)
>
>
>> And finally, don't forget to retitle the WNPP bug and set yourself as the
>> owner, and consider joining the pkg-php group so you use the team's svn
>> repo and co-maintain it with the others (at least Aleksey Zapparov was
>> also interested in packaging it).
> Ok.
>
> Thank you for your help.
> Andrea
Cheers,
--
Atomo64 - Raphael
Please avoid sending me Word, PowerPoint or Excel attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Reply to: