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. php<n>-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-php<n> (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
