On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 7:00 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III<tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The PHP guidelines seem rather clear that PHP modules all require a > "php-" prefix (with some types of modules requiring additional > designations like "php-pear-"). Recently I noticed that two modules, > phpFlickr and phpSmug, were both submitted and approved. I held off > on doing CVS for the latter; the reviewer's reasoning is as follows: > > "The php guidelines not withstanding, php-phpSmug struck me as > unnecessary duplication and the same with php-phpFlickr." > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510979 > > In general, I think it's the job of the reviewer to point out issues > in the guidelines rather than to simply ignore them. However, what's > done is done (unless we want to force a rename of phpFlickr, which has > already been imported) but I figured I'd ask if FPC wants to consider > ammending the guidelines to cover this case, or suggest another name > for this package. Personally I'm not really inclined to an exception, > because we have other packages like php-pear-PHP-CodeSniffer.noarch, > php-pear-PHPUnit.noarch, php-pear-PhpDocumentor.noarch with no > complaints about naming, but also phpTodo, phpMyAdmin and phpPgAdmin > which are not modules but applications which happen to have PHP in > their names. I think these applications fall under the: "Note that web applications that happen to be written in PHP do not belong under the php-* namespace." part of the PHP guidelines. These applications are not installing .so files in %{_libdir}/php, but rather php files in %{_datadir}/php Well atleast phpSmug, I did not look at phpFlickr. Hope this clarifies things, please correct me if I'm mistaken. Best Regards, Chris -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
