On 6/30/06, Joe Orton <jorton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
I think the php-pear(PEAR) should remain. It refers the the class, and therefore uses the class name, so something like php-pear-Foo-Bar would have a provides php-pear(Foo_Bar) which is the actual name of the class rather than some Fedora package naming standard. See my package: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/php-pear-Payment-Process.spec Where I have many such pear class requirements. These are listed on the pear download pages, for example: http://pear.php.net/package/Payment_Process/download The whole php-pear(Foo) thing is done to provide a reference to the true class name and to provide better cross compatibility between distributions.
Why should a PEAR package for foo provide php-foo? Not sure that's a good idea.
I'm not sure this is a good idea either, and I'm not sure of why it's part of the PHP packaging guidelines.
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).
I would agree except that Smarty is not an application, it is a library meant to be used by applications. I think the php-Smarty as a name is fine. -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
