Re: zendframework package with or without bin package
Hi folks, sorry for duplicate message. I get the hint and a link: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/09/msg00812.html So ignore this new duplicate thread. regards, Frank -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
zendframework package with or without bin package
Hi folks, i have created the package zendframework and zendframework-bin. The package zendframework contains the php libraries. The bin package contains two scripts with that you can create a mvc environment with the zendframework. This is only important for developers. So my question is, if i should also add the binary files to the zendframework package or if i should leave them separate? I also want to rename the package to libphp-zendframework. regards, Frank -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: zendframework package with or without bin package
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 06:22:20PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote: I also want to rename the package to libphp-zendframework. biased answer: ugh, why? That reminds me some of the libfoo-bar-moo-invent-something-else-here packages we have in the archive. the php policy draft recommends something along these lines as well, though in practice i think there are more php[N]-foo than there are libfoo-php[N]. while originally the intent was to seperate extensions and php libraries into two seperate naming conventions, it doesn't seem like this is realistic or worth the effort to try and police. sean signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: zendframework package with or without bin package
Jeremiah Foster wrote: On Sep 23, 2009, at 1:22, Raphael Geissert wrote: Frank Habermann wrote: I also want to rename the package to libphp-zendframework. biased answer: ugh, why? That reminds me some of the libfoo-bar-moo-invent-something-else-here packages we have in the archive. One possible answer to why? is that libfoo-bar-baz allows users easy access to a debian package that directly corresponds to the upstream software. Yes, but the Zend Framework is the Zend Framework. Zend being the company behind its development and behind the engine used in PHP it is somewhat explicit and obvious. The risk for a namespace collision in this case is minimal (if not zero), and prefixing it with libphp- just makes the name uselessly longer. Not to mention that it is a framework, not just a library. Btw, some stats: 8089 packages with 0 dashes 10243 packages with 1 dashes 6068 packages with 2 dashes 1547 packages with 3 dashes 230 packages with 4 dashes 48 packages with 5 dashes 14 packages with 6 dashes 1 packages with 7 dashes (sid/main/i386) Cheers, Raphael Geissert -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: zendframework package with or without bin package
sean finney wrote: On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 06:22:20PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote: I also want to rename the package to libphp-zendframework. biased answer: ugh, why? That reminds me some of the libfoo-bar-moo-invent-something-else-here packages we have in the archive. the php policy draft recommends something along these lines as well, I know, and it still mentions some php.ini munging IIRC. though in practice i think there are more php[N]-foo than there are libfoo-php[N]. while originally the intent was to seperate extensions and php libraries into two seperate naming conventions, it doesn't seem like this is realistic or worth the effort to try and police. phpn-foo has been being used for extensions php-foo for pear modules (although there are a couple of non PEAR packages using that naming IIRC) libphp-foo and libfoo-php for libraries and some weird combinations such as libfoo-phpn (which I think are extensions). But frameworks are the exception: cakephp, horde3, and the odd case of php5-symfony1.0. Cheers, Raphael Geissert -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
zendframework package with or without bin package
Hi folks, i have created the package zendframework and zendframework-bin. The package zendframework contains the php libraries. The bin package contains two scripts with that you can create a mvc environment with the zendframework. This is only important for developers. So my question is, if i should also add the binary files to the zendframework package or if i should leave them separate? I also want to rename the package to libphp-zendframework. regards, Frank -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: zendframework package with or without bin package
Frank Habermann wrote: Hi folks, i have created the package zendframework and zendframework-bin. The package zendframework contains the php libraries. The bin package contains two scripts with that you can create a mvc environment with the zendframework. This is only important for developers. So my question is, if i should also add the binary files to the zendframework package or if i should leave them separate? The general answer is whether it has any benefit or not (size could be an example). I also want to rename the package to libphp-zendframework. biased answer: ugh, why? That reminds me some of the libfoo-bar-moo-invent-something-else-here packages we have in the archive. P.S. -mentors would have been a more appropriate list for this question. Regards, Raphael Geissert -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: zendframework package with or without bin package
On Sep 23, 2009, at 1:22, Raphael Geissert wrote: Frank Habermann wrote: I also want to rename the package to libphp-zendframework. biased answer: ugh, why? That reminds me some of the libfoo-bar-moo-invent-something-else-here packages we have in the archive. One possible answer to why? is that libfoo-bar-baz allows users easy access to a debian package that directly corresponds to the upstream software. In the case of a perl package on CPAN it would be called Test::File. In debian it would be called libtest-file-perl since the perl module is a library, renamed test-file in accordance with debian policy and - perl added to denote which programming language the package is written in. This allows one to have libtest-file, libtest-file-ruby, etc, without too many namespace collisions. Since a vast majority of debian perl packages are named this way, users know what to look for on a debian system simply by the upstream name. Jeremiah -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
