On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 07:51:21PM +0100, Remi Collet wrote: > What I was thinking (in an quite old discussion, during initial PHP > Guidelines writing) is now reality > > According to PHP Guidelines, pear extension must be named > php-pear-<extension>. > > That's ok for standard pear.php.net channel. > > With non standard channel we can encounter conflicts. > > llaumgui is working on submitting ezComponents for review. > http://ezcomponents.org/ > > For example, one of the extension is Mail and php-pear-Mail already exists. > > My proposal is : > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PHP > > With this proposal, ezComponents will be named > php-ezc-<extensionname> > > Comments ? > Remi. Is it possible/does it make sense to coinstall php-pear-Foo and php-ezc-Foo or are they mutually exclusive? Or rephrased, if another package requires Foo, can both serve up? If this is the case then we probably need to think about solutions with virtual dependencies. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpQr9z5uNuIy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
