cc'ing Tim since we had lots of discussion about much of this stuff already and I'm not sure if he's on fedora-packaging (I didn't even know that list existed...) I was planning to add a "php-abi = <PHP_API_VERSION>" definition for C ABI versioning rather than php(ABI). Versioning language features in PHP a la MODULE_COMPAT_* is just not going to be feasible; the language is not well-defined enough nor stable enough for us to try and enforce versioning; plus stuff like "zend.ze1_compatibility_mode" means the exposed language is dependent on config options anyway. I don't see why it's necessary for a PEAR package to require php-pear(PEAR); that is somewhat equivalent to an RPM having "Requires: rpm"; it should be sufficient and correct for PEAR packages to simply "Requires: php-pear" AFAICS. Why should a PEAR package for foo provide php-foo? Not sure that's a good idea. On "Other Packages": an application written in PHP or such like should not have a php- prefix at all. A Smarty package should be called "smarty" (following the "upper-case is evil" rule of packaging). joe -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
