On 17/07/09 16:13, Remi Collet wrote:
First, I think this discussion should go to fedora-php-devel (a public
place), as I'd like to heard from others (tim please ?)
I've had a look this morning through some really old archives of
fedora-extras-list and fedora-packaging.
I submitted the first "real" package of a PEAR module that wasn't part of
php-pear back in Dec 05:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=176733
That was php-pear-DB, which doesn't involve a package name with an underscore,
so that doesn't help :-)
It does however refers back to an earlier bug from Nov 05 that I filed about
Provides in php-pear:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=173806
At that point "pear makerpm" generated packages called PEAR::Foo_Bar as per
upstream; the discussion in the above bug about naming was slightly different
as it related to Provides; Joe plumped for "php-pear(Foo_Bar)" as Provide
naming, which still stands and seems entirely reasonable.
At the time I incidentally mentioned that my preference for package naming was
php-pear-Foo_Bar. I can't find any discussions of what happened after that,
but the next package seems to have been (March 06) PEAR_Command_Packaging
(also by me, reviewed by Christopher):
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=185423
which was using the php-pear-Foo-Bar naming. However, I'm pretty sure that the
naming format was already implicitly agreed by then, because:
a) I seem to remember following a then generally-agreed if unwritten format
when creating the spec, and
b) there is no debate in the review bug about the naming.
My best guess is that it came about due to the NamingGuidelines specifying not
to use underscores. (I'm not sure whether the current exception about
excluding packages where the name naturally includes an underscore existed
then; I suspect not).
My opinions:
1. Current packages should follow the existing conventions. All current
packages bar two are php-pear-Foo-Bar. HTML_Javascript and Auth_HTTP
should fall into line. Let's be consistent.
2. Remi's suggestion to update the Guidelines to make this explicit is good.
3. If we were building a new distro from scratch tomorrow, with hindsight my
personal preference would be to use php-pear-Foo_Bar.
4. Notwithstanding (3), I cannot see *any* point whatsoever in undergoing a
massive exercise in revising the guidelines and renaming all existing
packages. I would certainly not expend any time on it myself.
Tim
_______________________________________________
Fedora-php-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-php-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-php-devel-list
