nowadays pear package has lost it's meaning of being code hosted at http://pear.php.net/
there seems to be coming larger amount of packages that are suggested to be installed using pear command http://www.phpunit.de/manual/current/en/installation.html http://www.ezcomponents.org/ http://pear.horde.org/ ... (see php-pear.spec for channel defs) the package naming rules should be unfied, because php-pear-PEAR_Command_Packaging not only creates new .spec files, but also creates depdendencies based on that info. currently pear make-rpm-spec decides (and seems work farily well): - if package cames from pear channel, name it php-pear-%{pkgname} - if cames elsewhere, name it as php-%{pkgname} - if it is source package, it will be named as php-pecl-%{pkgname} does anybody see problem with this pattern? should the pear-channel packages renamed also to php-%{pkgname} and what to do with ezcomponents.spec, drop it and build each package from separate spec? similar package is php-seclib.spec, which initially packages whole channel, should each of them be created own .spec? if ezcomponents.spec and php-seclib.spec aren't split to package specs, should it P: names if they would? -- glen _______________________________________________ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
