Re: Naming Scheme php-pear-HTML_Javascript and php-pear-Auth_HTTP

[Remi Collet]

Le 17/07/2009 16:59, Mamoru Tasaka a écrit :
>  Christopher Stone wrote, at 07/17/2009 02:22 PM +9:00:
> > On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Mamoru
> > Tasaka<mtasaka(a)ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> wrote:
> >> Christopher Stone wrote, at 07/17/2009 11:59 AM +9:00:
> >>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:35 AM, Mamoru
> >>> Tasaka<mtasaka(a)ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> wrote:
> >>>> You must explain why you want to force to change understore to hyphen,
> >>>> even if installed files actually uses understore in its name.
> >>> So trying to think back to when we originally created the PHP
> >>> guidelines, specifically for php-pear, I think we had already
> >>> discussed this issue.  You may want to search the packaging list
> >>> archives, I forget when we formulated the guidelines.  Anyway, I think
> >>> the logic behind it was that the perl packages converted the :: to -
> >>> in their packages. So in order to be consistent with the perl packages
> >>> we used the same convention in the php-pear packages.  There might be
> >>> some other technical reason why fedora converts upstream's :: to - for
> >>> perl packages which I'm not aware of however. But IIRC, that was the
> >>> logic behind the package naming.
> >>
> >> perl modules have some underscore naming like
> >> perl-Convert-NLS_DATE_FORMAT. We have no reason we must apply perl
> >> naming rule here and again there is no reason we should convert
> >> underscore
> >> to hyphen
> >> which would just cause confusion.
> >>
> >> Please think in the way that we need less guidelines as much as
> >> possible.
> >> If you have some reason *specific to php-pear*, please explain, and such
> >> reason must be written somewhere properly.
> >>
> >> Mamoru
> >>
> >
> > Then I guess we should search the packaging list archives and see if
> > we can find the reasoning when the guidelines were being formulated.
> > It must have been discussed or else the entire packaging committee
> > misunderstood the guidelines at the time.  The majority of the
> > packages are owned by Remi and myself.  I don't know how much work it
> > will be to rename all the packages. 
Hi,

First, I think this discussion should go to fedora-php-devel (a public
place), as I'd like to heard from others (tim please ?)


>  
>  So at least for now we cannot justify why underscore should be converted
>  to hyphen, right?  
I'm still not convinced.. but probably because I hate underscore...

>  For me it is strange that you or Remi don't remember
>  that (, however I guess there was actually no _real_ reason anyway).
>  
>  If we cannot find out what was discussed, we must withdraw the proposal
>  about converting underscore to hyphen and at least new packages must
>  use underscore if upstream's naming uses it.
>  (However I think remaing php-pear related packages on Fedora is preferable
>  and it is better that such renaming should be begun as early as possible) 
:(   really a big work

>  
>  Regards,
>  Mamoru
>   
Best regards.

Naming Scheme php-pear-HTML_Javascript and php-pear-Auth_HTTP

[Christopher Stone]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Remi Collet<Fedora(a)famillecollet.com> wrote:
>  I'm still not convinced.. but probably because I hate underscore...
>
>  :(   really a big work 
Indeed, any shell scripts or volunteers to help implement the
conversion would go a long way towards actually seeing this get done
in a timely fashion.

Naming Scheme php-pear-HTML_Javascript and php-pear-Auth_HTTP

[Tim Jackson]

On 17/07/09 16:13, Remi Collet wrote:

>  First, I think this discussion should go to fedora-php-devel (a
> public
>  place), as I'd like to heard from others (tim please ?) 
I've had a look this morning through some really old archives of 
fedora-extras-list and fedora-packaging.

I submitted the first "real" package of a PEAR module that wasn't part of 
php-pear back in Dec 05:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=176733

That was php-pear-DB, which doesn't involve a package name with an underscore, 
so that doesn't help :-)

It does however refers back to an earlier bug from Nov 05 that I filed about 
Provides in php-pear:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=173806

At that point "pear makerpm" generated packages called PEAR::Foo_Bar as per 
upstream; the discussion in the above bug about naming was slightly different 
as it related to Provides; Joe plumped for "php-pear(Foo_Bar)" as Provide 
naming, which still stands and seems entirely reasonable.

At the time I incidentally mentioned that my preference for package naming was 
php-pear-Foo_Bar. I can't find any discussions of what happened after that, 
but the next package seems to have been (March 06) PEAR_Command_Packaging 
(also by me, reviewed by Christopher):

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=185423

which was using the php-pear-Foo-Bar naming. However, I'm pretty sure that the 
naming format was already implicitly agreed by then, because:

a) I seem to remember following a then generally-agreed if unwritten format
    when creating the spec, and

b) there is no debate in the review bug about the naming.

My best guess is that it came about due to the NamingGuidelines specifying not 
to use underscores. (I'm not sure whether the current exception about 
excluding packages where the name naturally includes an underscore existed 
then; I suspect not).

My opinions:

1. Current packages should follow the existing conventions. All current
    packages bar two are php-pear-Foo-Bar. HTML_Javascript and Auth_HTTP
    should fall into line. Let's be consistent.

2. Remi's suggestion to update the Guidelines to make this explicit is good.

3. If we were building a new distro from scratch tomorrow, with hindsight my
    personal preference would be to use php-pear-Foo_Bar.

4. Notwithstanding (3), I cannot see *any* point whatsoever in undergoing a
    massive exercise in revising the guidelines and renaming all existing
    packages. I would certainly not expend any time on it myself.


Tim

Naming Scheme php-pear-HTML_Javascript and php-pear-Auth_HTTP

[Joe Orton]

On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 10:24:26AM +0100, Tim Jackson wrote:
>  My opinions:
>
>  1. Current packages should follow the existing conventions. All current
>     packages bar two are php-pear-Foo-Bar. HTML_Javascript and Auth_HTTP
>     should fall into line. Let's be consistent.
>
>  2. Remi's suggestion to update the Guidelines to make this explicit is good.
>
>  3. If we were building a new distro from scratch tomorrow, with hindsight my
>     personal preference would be to use php-pear-Foo_Bar.
>
>  4. Notwithstanding (3), I cannot see *any* point whatsoever in undergoing a
>     massive exercise in revising the guidelines and renaming all existing
>     packages. I would certainly not expend any time on it myself. 
I agree with everything above.

Regards, Joe