Axel Thimm a écrit :
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.
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.
I agree with Axel.
We already have some package php-pear-* which doesn't come from
pear.php.net, but from other Channel (well php-channel-* guidelines is
missing) which follow the PEAR convention.
I've just have a quick look to oauth
- no package.xml...
- no versionning...
So, i don't see this extension as a Pear package.
Upstream have a lot a work to do, i think.
Regards
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
