[RFC] Extensions Meta-Data File

Note: We are moving the topics of this forum and it will be deleted at some point

Publish your own request for comments/change or patches for the next version of phpBB. Discuss the contributions and proposals of others. Upcoming releases are 3.2/Rhea and 3.3.
Oleg
Posts: 1150
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:38 am
Contact:

Re: [RFC] Extensions Meta-Data File

Post by Oleg » Tue Feb 28, 2012 1:49 pm

Name is vendor/cleanname - is vendor going to be transferred into the directory structure as well?

Time - if you call it time, make it a time.

Authors - what is the difference between an author and a contributor?

Username - phpbb username? github username?

No support for phpbb version ranges?

As others said the spec should be in a plain text/wiki/html(?) format.

Why is it dual licensed as gpl v2 and mit?

User avatar
callumacrae
Infrastructure Team
Infrastructure Team
Posts: 1046
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:37 am
Location: England
Contact:

Re: [RFC] Extensions Meta-Data File

Post by callumacrae » Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:05 pm

+1 for role
Made by developers, for developers!
My blog

User avatar
MichaelC
Development Team
Development Team
Posts: 889
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:29 pm

Re: [RFC] Extensions Meta-Data File

Post by MichaelC » Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:25 pm

Oleg wrote:Name is vendor/cleanname - is vendor going to be transferred into the directory structure as well?

Time - if you call it time, make it a time.

Authors - what is the difference between an author and a contributor?

Username - phpbb username? github username?

No support for phpbb version ranges?

As others said the spec should be in a plain text/wiki/html(?) format.

Why is it dual licensed as gpl v2 and mit?
Vendor: I'm assuming so but that will be up to the MOD Team. The vendor name idea was one of igor's and its in there but can always be removed. If its not going to be used in directory structure then it will be removed. Its helpful, keeps things organised and helps get uniqueness.

It can be a time, it is in the schema but I forgot to add it to spec (sorry). Time is one of the composer.json items hence its existence there

Username: Up to the user, phpBB.com would be preferable but not every mod author is registered on .com. This would be something for MOD DB Policies, not the spec.

Version Ranges: No as a each release is validated and tested on a single release, not on all releases. Same as MODX.

Spec Format: Yep, coming soon as I said. It was originally based on the MODX 1 Spec which is a PDF, not plain text. But an HTML version is also needed for the (phpBB) website.

Because GPLv2 for the bits phpBB has added but composer.json (which is takes large chunks from) is MIT.

Role/Status/Position Discussion: I would say role as 1) its shorter and its descriptive enough so I'll change that now.
Formerly known as Unknown Bliss
psoTFX wrote: I went with Olympus because as I said to the teams ... "It's been one hell of a hill to climb"
No unsolicited PMs please except for quotes.

Oleg
Posts: 1150
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:38 am
Contact:

Re: [RFC] Extensions Meta-Data File

Post by Oleg » Wed Feb 29, 2012 8:17 am

Unknown Bliss wrote: Because GPLv2 for the bits phpBB has added but composer.json (which is takes large chunks from) is MIT.
If so you cannot dual license, the entire work must be under gpl 2.

User avatar
tumba25
Registered User
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Kokkola, Finland.
Contact:

Re: [RFC] Extensions Meta-Data File

Post by tumba25 » Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:33 pm

Role is fine.

Now you have several (two) versions of the specs in the first post. Please remove the old ones. The link to your github repo should be enough.

There are several licenses called MIT, which is misleading since MIT has used many licenses for software. The correct name would be the Expat License.
The license used by the composer allows the work to be licensed under GPLv2, but the parts licensed under GPLv2 can't be licensed under the Expat license.
As Oleg said, you need to license this under GPLv2.
Image

Need a mod created/installed, other custom-coded solution or a server admin? https://tumba25.net

User avatar
MichaelC
Development Team
Development Team
Posts: 889
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:29 pm

Re: [RFC] Extensions Meta-Data File

Post by MichaelC » Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:43 pm

tumba25 wrote:Role is fine.

Now you have several (two) versions of the specs in the first post. Please remove the old ones. The link to your github repo should be enough.

There are several licenses called MIT which is misleading, since MIT has used many licenses for software. The correct name would be the Expat License.
The license used by the composer allows the work to be licensed under GPLv2, but the parts licensed under GPLv2 can't be licensed under the Expat license.
As Oleg said, you need to license this under GPLv2.
Attachments: Opps, sorry I missed that and just removed it inline, not the attachment. I'll do that now.

Licence: Ok, I'll change that now.
Formerly known as Unknown Bliss
psoTFX wrote: I went with Olympus because as I said to the teams ... "It's been one hell of a hill to climb"
No unsolicited PMs please except for quotes.

User avatar
MichaelC
Development Team
Development Team
Posts: 889
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:29 pm

Re: [RFC] Extensions Meta-Data File

Post by MichaelC » Mon Mar 05, 2012 10:55 pm

Formerly known as Unknown Bliss
psoTFX wrote: I went with Olympus because as I said to the teams ... "It's been one hell of a hill to climb"
No unsolicited PMs please except for quotes.

User avatar
naderman
Product Manager
Product Manager
Posts: 1727
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 2:11 am
Location: Karlsruhe, Germany
Contact:

Re: [RFC] Extensions Meta-Data File

Post by naderman » Wed Apr 11, 2012 11:56 am

So looking at this again, can we simply use the composer.json format and also call the file that? It seems like our current file is pretty much that anyway. If we want to have author roles, we can just add them to the composer schema. Please create an issue on the composer repo for that. Are there any other differences? As for the specifiation of the format, that already exists then: http://getcomposer.org/doc/04-schema.md

User avatar
naderman
Product Manager
Product Manager
Posts: 1727
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 2:11 am
Location: Karlsruhe, Germany
Contact:

Re: [RFC] Extensions Meta-Data File

Post by naderman » Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:41 pm

I've created a ticket for it: http://tracker.phpbb.com/browse/PHPBB3-10817

I've also filed a composer ticket for the author role: https://github.com/composer/composer/issues/581

User avatar
MichaelC
Development Team
Development Team
Posts: 889
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:29 pm

Re: [RFC] Extensions Meta-Data File

Post by MichaelC » Sat Apr 28, 2012 2:39 pm

PR sent to the composer repo - https://github.com/composer/composer/pull/639

I don't really know why you created a ticket as the only changes are to MOD Policies and to the extensions admin which has not yet been merged?
Formerly known as Unknown Bliss
psoTFX wrote: I went with Olympus because as I said to the teams ... "It's been one hell of a hill to climb"
No unsolicited PMs please except for quotes.

Post Reply