naming packages installed to /usr/share/pear

[Elan Ruusamäe]

  nowadays pear package has lost it's meaning of being code hosted at 
http://pear.php.net/

there seems to be coming larger amount of packages that are suggested to 
be installed using pear command

http://www.phpunit.de/manual/current/en/installation.html
http://www.ezcomponents.org/
http://pear.horde.org/
... (see php-pear.spec for channel defs)

the package naming rules should be unfied, because 
php-pear-PEAR_Command_Packaging not only creates new .spec files, but 
also creates depdendencies based on that info.

currently pear make-rpm-spec decides (and seems work farily well):
- if package cames from pear channel, name it php-pear-%{pkgname}
- if cames elsewhere, name it as php-%{pkgname}
- if it is source package, it will be named as php-pecl-%{pkgname}

does anybody see problem with this pattern?
should the pear-channel packages renamed also to php-%{pkgname}

and what to do with ezcomponents.spec,
drop it and build each package from separate spec?

similar package is php-seclib.spec, which initially packages whole 
channel, should each of them be created own .spec?

if ezcomponents.spec and php-seclib.spec aren't split to package specs, 
should it P: names if they would?

-- 
glen