Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-apc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195836 ------- Additional Comments From paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-06-19 09:15 EST ------- (In reply to comment #15) > Hi Paul, thanks for taking the time to look at the package in this situation > > I've made some changes to the spec file based on your feedback: > > Removed Buildrequires for php, auto*, libtool .. mock build says your absolutely > right and there was no need for them :-) > > I've added "Provides: php-pecl(apc)" to it, based on the sugestions in the PHP > packaging proposal. > > Renaming the package to php-pecl-APC might be less desireable though, for a > number of reasons. Firstly out of conveniance (its already imported and build as > php-apc), but more importantly out of consitency with php-json, php-idn, > php-eaccelerator, etc ... only mailparse seems to follow this standard at this > time, however if your of the opinion that it would be much preferable to follow > the php-pecl-apc naming, i'd be willing to send out the revoke mails and rename > the package too :-) My preference would be for php-pecl-apc or php-pecl-APC; it's a hassle I know but it helps to provide the right precedent for future packages (mailparse won't be alone...). The new guidelines also have: Where there is no naming conflict, a package named "foo" SHOULD do: * Provides: php-foo = %{version}-%{release} so a "yum install php-apc" would still work if you had that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review