I don't see monobook on https://packagist.org/users/mediawiki/ or anywhere; there are Vector and Metrolook.
Description
Related Objects
- Mentioned Here
- T467: RfC: Extension management with Composer
Event Timeline
No reason to believe monobook is different from Vector in level of packaging support.
The packagist is list under https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Extension_management_with_Composer#Packagist, and that document is marked as "declined".
But it is okay to reopen.
We use the extension registry system instead of composer and the extension distributor instead of packagist. That has been talked about over and over during the RFC and in the end consensus has been to write our own thing.
People should not use composer to install extensions and skins. If there are still left on packagist.org it is mostly leftover from attempt we did with composer years ago.
Moreover:
- Monobook has been deprecated since 2010
- It still bundled in the mediawiki release tarball which is the primary way of installing it.
So in the end I agree with @Umherirrender there is not much to do there and eventually packagist.org should be cleaned.
That has been talked about over and over during the RFC and in the end consensus has been to write our own thing.
This consensus may have been on an internal WMF discussion board but that doesn't mean that other developers have to follow suit especially those that are not affiliated with WMF.
People should not use composer to install extensions and skins. If there are still left on packagist.org it is mostly leftover from attempt we did with composer years ago.
People use it whether you liked or not.
mostly leftover
This is statement is just not true (you may look at the download statistics before making such statements).
@mwjames: Nope. The RfC and its related task are public, the meeting was announced, and meeting logs are available.
What else would you have expected to see, or what would have been required to make you aware?