|
Home > Archive > Debian Developers > April 2004 > Re: Naming for PHP pear modules in Debian - Was: Re: PHP pear modules for Debian
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: Naming for PHP pear modules in Debian - Was: Re: PHP pear modules for Debian
|
|
| Uwe Steinmann 2004-04-29, 9:34 am |
| On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 01:14:49PM +0100, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-04-29 at 09:57, Andreas Tille wrote:
>
> And to bring that naming issue up again. Wouldn't it be best just to callthem
> libpear-something og libphp-something ?
>
> That is the naming scheme mostly used all over Debian (libapache, libperl, etc.)
>
> I think something like that probably should be defined, before they are introduced.
There are already some packages from pear and pecl with a different
naming scheme. The packages coming with php itself are just called
php4-<name>. That would imply that packages from pecl should be using
the same naming scheme. We may discuss whether 'pecl' should be part of
the name. But actually an extension in pecl doesn't differ from one
shipped with php. There will also be no risk of a name clash, because in
the long run the php distribution will be a collection of php extension
coming from pecl and the current php base. I vote for php-<name>.
Packages in pear are written in php and in so far different from pecl
packages. It might be a good idea to make this clear in the debian
package name. libpear-<name> would be ok.
Just my 2¢
Uwe
--
MMK GmbH, Universitaetsstr. 11, 58097 Hagen
Uwe.Steinmann@mmk-hagen.de
Tel: +2331 840446 Fax: +2331 843920
| |
| Steve Langasek 2004-04-29, 1:34 pm |
| On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 03:05:06PM +0200, Uwe Steinmann wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 01:14:49PM +0100, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> There are already some packages from pear and pecl with a different
> naming scheme. The packages coming with php itself are just called
> php4-<name>. That would imply that packages from pecl should be using
> the same naming scheme. We may discuss whether 'pecl' should be part of
> the name. But actually an extension in pecl doesn't differ from one
> shipped with php. There will also be no risk of a name clash, because in
> the long run the php distribution will be a collection of php extension
> coming from pecl and the current php base. I vote for php-<name>.
> Packages in pear are written in php and in so far different from pecl
> packages. It might be a good idea to make this clear in the debian
> package name. libpear-<name> would be ok.
The current consensus among the php4 maintainers is that packages for
PEAR modules ought to be called php-*, and packages for PECL modules
(and extensions shipped with php4) ought to be php4-* and php5-* as
appropriate.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
| |
| Steve Langasek 2004-04-29, 1:34 pm |
| On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 05:15:00PM +0200, Mirco 'meebey' Bauer wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-04-29 at 14:14, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Also versioning (PHP4/5) should be considered in the package namings.
> Some new PEAR package will only work with PHP5, some work with both.
> I am not sure how PERL solves this versioning problem, if it exists
> there 
> I also want to note that the PEAR package in Debian should work as the
> CPAN one. Installation of PEAR packages via "pear install $package_name"
> should be done in /usr/local... but debian pear packages put them into
> /usr..
> the php.ini just needs to know both paths in the "include_path" option
Please file a bug about this if there isn't one open already.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
| |
| Martin List-Petersen 2004-04-29, 1:34 pm |
| Citat Mirco 'meebey' Bauer <meebey@php.net>:
> I also want to note that the PEAR package in Debian should work as the
> CPAN one. Installation of PEAR packages via "pear install $package_name"
> should be done in /usr/local... but debian pear packages put them into
> /usr..
> the php.ini just needs to know both paths in the "include_path" option
I would actually prefer to do some thinking, how we solve the mix of these
options, so that the dpkg system knows, that the package has been installed from
pear instead (is the same issue with CPAN against libperl-* installation.) And
that might actually be worth thinking about before we start packaging these
modules, that we have some functionality in place, that put's naming and
combining of manual and packaged installation in place.
Something that every debianized pear package would check if itself has been
installed manually via "pear install" allready and asks if the should be
removed/replaced or left.
Just thinking of avoiding stuff that could have been done better in other
places.
/Martin
--
Q: How many IBM CPU's does it take to do a logical right shift?
A: 33. 1 to hold the bits and 32 to push the register.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|
|
|
|
|