On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 19:54 +0200, Remi Collet wrote: > Andreas Thienemann a écrit : > > And about the naming conflicts: It's possible. The pear and pecl projects > > are not sharing the same namespace. > You're right. > > Thus a conflict could occur, even > > though I haven't looked into the matter if there are already conflicting > > names. > > > I've look and don't see any conflict at this time. > > PECL packages could(should) probably drop the pecl (php-foo) as some > extensions from core php has been dropped and put to pecl (mailparse, > with php 4.2 for ex.) and other pecl extensions has been included in > php main core tarball (pdo, with php-5.1 for ex.) We might need to add some php-pecl() provides in the main php package. > Only one extension in extras with pecl : php-pecl-mailparse. > Lot of extensions without pecl : php-mhash, php-mcrypt, php-tidy, > php-dbase... There's always a little pain in doing standards after packages are built. It's better that we do it now before its even worse. ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Senior Sales Engineer || GPG ID: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my! -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
