On 6/30/06, Joe Orton <jorton(a)redhat.com> wrote:
I don't see why it's necessary for a PEAR package to require
php-pear(PEAR); that is somewhat equivalent to an RPM having "Requires:
rpm"; it should be sufficient and correct for PEAR packages to simply
"Requires: php-pear" AFAICS.
I think the php-pear(PEAR) should remain. It refers the the class,
and therefore uses the class name, so something like php-pear-Foo-Bar
would have a provides php-pear(Foo_Bar) which is the actual name of
the class rather than some Fedora package naming standard.
See my package:
Where I have many such pear class requirements. These are listed on
the pear download pages, for example:
The whole php-pear(Foo) thing is done to provide a reference to the
true class name and to provide better cross compatibility between
Why should a PEAR package for foo provide php-foo? Not sure that's a
I'm not sure this is a good idea either, and I'm not sure of why it's
part of the PHP packaging guidelines.
On "Other Packages": an application written in PHP or such like should
not have a php- prefix at all. A Smarty package should be called
"smarty" (following the "upper-case is evil" rule of packaging).
I would agree except that Smarty is not an application, it is a
library meant to be used by applications. I think the php-Smarty as a
name is fine.