On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 09:36:12PM +0530, Rakesh Pandit wrote: > Hello all, > > I had a confusion regarding PHP libraries which have a pending > draft at pear.php.net but haven't been yet included in pear. May we go > ahead packaging them as pear? Or package them as non pear PHP > libraries and wait for proposal to pass? Or it is upto packager? > For example php-openid[1] or php-oauth[2] has a proposed status > for pear. FWIW when php-openid was first packaged the then actual version was in pear. I don't know why it was removed, but one of the TODO items upstream was to get it back in officially. > OpenID review is already going on and i am a bit impatient > getting oauth also in ;-) > > Suggestions? I'm interpreting "pear" as used within the FP guidelines as a packaging technology and not as a name of a collection. Otherwise we would have to rename packages back and forth everytime there is a change in the pear collection. > May be PHP Packaging wiki page[3] requires some update regarding this. If the FPC agrees, then the technology vs collection nomenclature should be added to clarify. > Thanks. > > [1] http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=500 > [2] http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=512 > [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/PHP > -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
