> On Mar 2, 2024, at 11:59 PM, Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> wrote: > > Hello, > > I did a little survey on PHP PECL ports and found that almost half of the > PECL ports (27 out of 68) have PEAR listed as the second category. I believe > this is a mistake and PECL ports should not be listed in the PEAR category > because PECL [1] ports are PHP extensions (wrappers for C libraries), but > PEAR [2] ports are libraries written in PHP. > > Or did I miss something and there is a reasonable reason for PECL ports to be > also listed in the PEAR category? > > These are 27 ports: > > archivers/pecl-lzf archivers pear > archivers/pecl-rar archivers pear > databases/pecl-mongodb databases pear > databases/pecl-rrd databases pear > devel/pecl-dio devel pear > devel/pecl-excimer devel pear > devel/pecl-expect devel pear > devel/pecl-uploadprogress devel pear > devel/pecl-uuid devel pear > devel/pecl-vld devel pear > devel/pecl-xdebug devel pear > graphics/pecl-qrencode graphics pear > net-im/pecl-stomp2 net-im pear > net/pecl-amqp net pear > net/pecl-oauth2 net pear > net/pecl-radius net security pear > net/pecl-rdkafka net pear > net/pecl-smbclient net pear > net/pecl-xmlrpc net pear > security/pecl-krb5 security pear > security/pecl-mcrypt security pear > security/pecl-pam security pear > security/pecl-scrypt security pear > security/pecl-ssh2 security pear > sysutils/pecl-proctitle sysutils pear > textproc/pecl-xdiff2 textproc pear > textproc/pecl-yaml textproc pear > > Should I submit a PR with a patch for all 27 ports? > > [1] https://pecl.php.net/ > [2] https://pear.php.net/ > > Kind regards > Miroslav Lachman >
As the maintainer of php I do agree with this. The only problem is other maintainers of some of the ports do not. There was a discussion on this long time(php5) ago which did not see any fruitful result. You can create a review instead in phabricator and add the maintainers and retry again. Kind regards, Moin
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
