On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Tim Jackson<lists@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 18/07/09 15:00, Jason L Tibbitts III 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." > > I can see the point, but I agree think we should leave the guidelines as is. > php-phpFlickr *does* sound a bit clumsy, but at least it's consistent. > Otherwise, if I saw phpXXX in a package listing, I would think it's an app > like phpMyAdmin, rather than a library. I don't know if the guidelines would strictly allow for it, but it seems php-Smug, php-Flickr would be an acceptable compromise. Regards, Chris -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
