On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III<tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> "CS" == Christopher Stone <chris.stone@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> CS> I think these applications fall under the: "Note that web
> CS> applications that happen to be written in PHP do not belong under
> CS> the php-* namespace." part of the PHP guidelines.
>
> I'm not sure I understood this response. The only reason I mentioned
> applications was to point out that there are a few packages which
> start with php* that aren't PHP modules, but that the two packages I
> was questioning explicitly do not fit into that category. Maybe I
> shouldn't have mentioned them at all, because it seems to have
> confused the issue. Do I need to re-post my original message
> without that mention?
>
> CS> These applications are not installing .so files in %{_libdir}/php,
> CS> but rather php files in %{_datadir}/php Well atleast phpSmug, I
> CS> did not look at phpFlickr.
>
> My understanding is that phpSmug and phpFlickr are indeed PHP modules,
> no different from php-Smarty. Since they're not pear or pecl modules,
> they fall under "Other packages should be named
> php-PackageName-%{version}-%{release}.%{arch}.rpm; %{arch} can be
> "noarch" where appropriate."
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#Naming_scheme
No, I'm arguing that a php module as being defined as something which
puts a .so file under %{_libdir}/php.
I too was just considering the php-Smarty case. It is a package which
I own, but was originally owned by someone else. I tried to find the
review request on php-Smarty to see if this issue came up, but could
not find it (my searching skillz might need improvement), if you can
find the review and it mentions this issue, please provide a link.
However, I would think that php-Smarty could (and perhaps should) be
actually named just "Smarty".
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
