[pkg-php-pear] Bug#704008: ITP: php-sabredav-vobject -- library to parse and manipulate iCalendar and vCard objects

Thomas Goirand zigo at debian.org
Thu Mar 28 17:26:12 UTC 2013

On 03/28/2013 04:48 AM, David Prévot wrote:
>> Please consider maintaining this under the PKG PHP PEAR group:
>> Debian PHP PEAR Maintainers <pkg-php-pear at lists.alioth.debian.org>
> Please note that “SabreDAV is no longer a pear package” as stated by the
> upstream developer.
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-owncloud-maintainers/Week-of-Mon-20130325/000477.html

That's disappointing, IMO. And then I'm not sure what's the way forward...

>> Also please use pkg-php-tools if possible.
> Since there is no package.xml nor channel.xml in the upstream source,
> that seems pointless (the binary packages produced look identical with
> or without the extra bits).

Is there a way so that upstream reverts, and provides a package.xml
again? That seems going backward to me.

> I appreciate the idea of packaging a new php- package in the most fitted
> team to do so, but I’d appreciate more information about why
> pkg-php-pear team (and pkg-php-tools) should be better.

I think it's a good fit, only if your package has a general use, outside
of owncloud.

> I’m (brand) new to the pkg-owncloud team, so I don’t have any strong
> opinion, but on the “plus” side of the initial proposal, I think that
> pkg-owncloud care about php-sabre* (as only owncloud currently depends
> on them)

I don't think that the Debian dependency is the issue here. It's more if
the package has a general use. Many of our users are using PEAR packages
without any of their reverse dependencies.

> already has a bit of experience in packaging php-sabredav, and
> (the lazy argument ;) it’s already there:
> http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-owncloud/php-sabre-vobject.git
> Thanks in advance for sharing your toughs.

I'd say, don't bother then, and forget what I wrote... :)


More information about the pkg-php-pear mailing list