From nobody Sat Mar 02 22:59:10 2024 X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4TnL4T25Rcz5D707 for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2024 22:59:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from SRS0=wRrg=KI=quip.cz=000.fbsd@elsa.codelab.cz) Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (elsa.codelab.cz [94.124.105.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4TnL4S1tjlz4mpd for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2024 22:59:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from SRS0=wRrg=KI=quip.cz=000.fbsd@elsa.codelab.cz) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=quip.cz header.s=private header.b=YqEIV8ol; dkim=pass header.d=quip.cz header.s=private header.b=De2UmEAE; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of "SRS0=wRrg=KI=quip.cz=000.fbsd@elsa.codelab.cz" has no SPF policy when checking 94.124.105.4) smtp.mailfrom="SRS0=wRrg=KI=quip.cz=000.fbsd@elsa.codelab.cz" Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65277D78F7 for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2024 23:59:12 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=quip.cz; s=private; t=1709420352; bh=yZ1m2fvWZ5Sl0bWOuqG27ylAyrx4eCpTQVA6kxZ8vBQ=; h=Date:To:From:Subject; b=YqEIV8olin2GPrSSCGPX77zGpp3SOckcAIoSiMdF/k84JxxBjsE+SfBE6/KFJYRHJ 388clQMhv8AtChE4eHwjPnPMdtdGMmx/b90XBtfH8DsZYucJxU1i6gmtERwH785FNp NokEQvhBIv1tFZvHu4MqtbM/Szz4uepYdcMEMYcM= Received: from [192.168.145.49] (ip-89-177-27-225.bb.vodafone.cz [89.177.27.225]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3032ED7888 for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2024 23:59:11 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=quip.cz; s=private; t=1709420351; bh=yZ1m2fvWZ5Sl0bWOuqG27ylAyrx4eCpTQVA6kxZ8vBQ=; h=Date:To:From:Subject; b=De2UmEAEWBwWxqslkiK7KS8BzRr9I12YlHObZy7YUUT+DAVM2OSAkt1Nl5lBD8czf to6wmcGXt/af+xHnuxCnlAtY5mihkk/+AF3R4OifGD9JQ7+/GjkJuNhD/H9ewh4m5f MzT2udYvaI9Hx5aY+6UOWANIULXQR3oqa0kjsx/8= Message-ID: <47b6ed22-0013-4210-bb23-b3e54814c8dc@quip.cz> Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2024 23:59:10 +0100 List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-ports List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Content-Language: en-US From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> Subject: Proposal to remove PECL ports from the PEAR category Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spamd-Bar: -- X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.99 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-1.000]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[000.fbsd@quip.cz,SRS0=wRrg=KI=quip.cz=000.fbsd@elsa.codelab.cz]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[quip.cz:s=private]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; XM_UA_NO_VERSION(0.01)[]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[no SPF record]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[quip.cz]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:42000, ipnet:94.124.104.0/21, country:CZ]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[000.fbsd@quip.cz,SRS0=wRrg=KI=quip.cz=000.fbsd@elsa.codelab.cz]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-ports@freebsd.org]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[quip.cz:+] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4TnL4S1tjlz4mpd Hello, I did a little survey on PHP PECL ports and found that almost half of the PECL ports (27 out of 68) have PEAR listed as the second category. I believe this is a mistake and PECL ports should not be listed in the PEAR category because PECL [1] ports are PHP extensions (wrappers for C libraries), but PEAR [2] ports are libraries written in PHP. Or did I miss something and there is a reasonable reason for PECL ports to be also listed in the PEAR category? These are 27 ports: archivers/pecl-lzf archivers pear archivers/pecl-rar archivers pear databases/pecl-mongodb databases pear databases/pecl-rrd databases pear devel/pecl-dio devel pear devel/pecl-excimer devel pear devel/pecl-expect devel pear devel/pecl-uploadprogress devel pear devel/pecl-uuid devel pear devel/pecl-vld devel pear devel/pecl-xdebug devel pear graphics/pecl-qrencode graphics pear net-im/pecl-stomp2 net-im pear net/pecl-amqp net pear net/pecl-oauth2 net pear net/pecl-radius net security pear net/pecl-rdkafka net pear net/pecl-smbclient net pear net/pecl-xmlrpc net pear security/pecl-krb5 security pear security/pecl-mcrypt security pear security/pecl-pam security pear security/pecl-scrypt security pear security/pecl-ssh2 security pear sysutils/pecl-proctitle sysutils pear textproc/pecl-xdiff2 textproc pear textproc/pecl-yaml textproc pear Should I submit a PR with a patch for all 27 ports? [1] https://pecl.php.net/ [2] https://pear.php.net/ Kind regards Miroslav Lachman