Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: php-apc


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195836





------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-06-19 09:15 EST -------
(In reply to comment #15)
> Hi Paul, thanks for taking the time to look at the package in this situation
> 
> I've made some changes to the spec file based on your feedback:
> 
> Removed Buildrequires for php, auto*, libtool .. mock build says your 
> absolutely
> right and there was no need for them :-)
> 
> I've added "Provides: php-pecl(apc)" to it, based on the sugestions in the PHP
> packaging proposal.
> 
> Renaming the package to php-pecl-APC might be less desireable though, for a
> number of reasons. Firstly out of conveniance (its already imported and build 
> as
> php-apc), but more importantly out of consitency with php-json, php-idn,
> php-eaccelerator, etc ... only mailparse seems to follow this standard at this
> time, however if your of the opinion that it would be much preferable to 
> follow
> the php-pecl-apc naming, i'd be willing to send out the revoke mails and 
> rename
> the package too :-)

My preference would be for php-pecl-apc or php-pecl-APC; it's a hassle I know
but it helps to provide the right precedent for future packages (mailparse won't
be alone...). The new guidelines also have:

Where there is no naming conflict, a package named "foo" SHOULD do:
 * Provides: php-foo = %{version}-%{release}

so a "yum install php-apc" would still work if you had that.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

_______________________________________________
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

Reply via email to