naming packages installed to /usr/share/pear

Elan Ruusamäe glen at
Fri Oct 1 16:14:33 CEST 2010

  nowadays pear package has lost it's meaning of being code hosted at

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


More information about the pld-devel-en mailing list