Axel Thimm a écrit :
On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 09:36:12PM +0530, Rakesh Pandit wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I had a confusion regarding PHP libraries which have a pending
> draft at
pear.php.net but haven't been yet included in pear. May we go
> ahead packaging them as pear? Or package them as non pear PHP
> libraries and wait for proposal to pass? Or it is upto packager?
> For example php-openid[1] or php-oauth[2] has a proposed status
> for pear.
I'm interpreting "pear" as used within the FP guidelines as a
packaging technology and not as a name of a collection. Otherwise we
would have to rename packages back and forth everytime there is a
change in the pear collection.
I agree with Axel.
We already have some package php-pear-* which doesn't come from
pear.php.net, but from other Channel (well php-channel-* guidelines is
missing) which follow the PEAR convention.
I've just have a quick look to oauth
- no package.xml...
- no versionning...
So, i don't see this extension as a Pear package.
Upstream have a lot a work to do, i think.
Regards