php-devel July 2007

php-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

7 participants
9 discussions

RFC for PHP Guidelines Update
by Remi Collet 28 Jan '09

28 Jan '09

Please read the draft : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PHP * Requires and Provides * Macros and scriptlets And give feedback before this being proposed to FPC. Comments on "channels" are also welcome ;) Remi.

3 4

Zend's PDT
by Konstantin Ryabitsev 29 Feb '08

29 Feb '08

So... Does anyone feel brave enough to try packaging PDT? :) http://zend.com/pdt/ Cheers, -- Konstantin Ryabitsev Montréal, Québec

2 2

php-pear 1.6.1
by Remi Collet 21 Jul '07

21 Jul '07

Joe Orton a écrit : > On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 08:57:43PM +0200, Remi Collet wrote: > >> I could probably push php-pear 1.6.1 to devel. >> Of course, if you agree to use a "home made" install-pear-nozlib.phar >> because upstream still provides 1.5.4. >> > > I don't like that idea still. Can you bring this up on the list so we > can all discuss it? I think there was a way to bootstrap from the .tgz > releases instead, which we could switch to. > The solution seems to use (very short resume) : php install-pear.php *.tgz Work a little on this, here is my specfile : http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/SPEC/php-pear-test.spec http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/SRPMS/php-pear-1.6.1-3.fc7.remi.src.rpm Of course, build work in mock : http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/php-pear-1.6.1-build.log It only use upstream .tgz and "install-pear.php" from CVS (the one which is bundled in the .phar) Some cleanup from old 1.5.x are no more required (use of INSTALL_ROOT), some still needed (pear.conf) Remi

3 6

Dependencies on php vs php-common
by Tim Jackson 20 Jul '07

20 Jul '07

Looking at a random selection of packages I have on a machine, there are quite a few things that depend on the "php" package. For example on an FC6 system: # rpm -q --whatrequires php php-pear-1.4.9-4 php-pear-DB-1.7.6-7.fc6 php-pear-PHPUnit-1.3.2-1.fc6 squirrelmail-1.4.10a-1.fc6 php-adodb-4.94-1.fc6 mantis-1.0.8-1.fc6 php-devel-5.1.6-3.6.fc6 Should these in general not be dependent on php-common rather than php, since "php" now basically contains just Apache HTTPD-related stuff? (php-adodb should probably also only have an indirect dep via php(abi), which is provided by php-common; I haven't checked if that's different in fc7/devel) Tim

3 4

/var/lib/php/session
by Tim Jackson 18 Jul '07

18 Jul '07

These days after all the cleanups, the "php" package (vs php-common) pretty much just contains Apache HTTPD-related stuff: # rpm -ql php /etc/httpd/conf.d/php.conf /usr/lib/httpd/modules/libphp5.so /var/lib/php/session /var/www/icons/php.gif So in theory it should be OK to remove this if you need PHP but not the HTTPD stuff (for example if you are using CGI or CLI only). However, you'll notice /var/lib/php/session in the above list. This doesn't seem to be specific to HTTPD and indeed is useful if you are using php-cgi from a webserver. Indeed, the path is compiled into the binaries; for example: $ php-a Interactive shell php > echo ini_get('session.save_path'); /var/lib/php/session So I think we should probably move it to php-common - what do others think? Tim

2 2

PHP Dependency Problems on EL5
by Christopher Stone 17 Jul '07

17 Jul '07

Is php-mcrypt and php-mhash not built on EL-5? What are the missing requirement? php-pear-Crypt-CHAP - 1.0.1-1.el5.noarch requires php-mcrypt php-pear-Crypt-CHAP - 1.0.1-1.el5.noarch requires php-mhash Thanks in advance, -Chris

2 1

17 Jul '07

We are registering the PEAR extensions, so "pear list" give the install list. But we do nothing for PECL extensions. It seems that it is now possible (since pear 1.5.0 ?) using pecl install --nodeps --soft --force --register-only --nobuild /path/to/package.xml pecl uninstall --nodeps --ignore-errors --register-only package_name Read : https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244045 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221129 An example : http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/SPEC/php-pecl-apc.spec (i've don't use >/dev/null to see warning/notice i have to work on, to file an upstream bug) Please post feedback - should php-pecl-apc be renamed to php-pecl-APC ? - about using this feature - about updating Guidelines - about using this with pear < 1.5.0 (i don't have it available) We'll probaly have to think of using the same dir for %{pear_xmldir} and %{pecl_xmldir} Remi.

2 7

[Fwd: Re: [Fedora-php-devel-list] Pear in EL-4]
by Remi Collet 12 Jul '07

12 Jul '07

Don't understand why this list haven't a "reply-to" header like other... -------- Message original -------- Sujet: Re: [Fedora-php-devel-list] Pear in EL-4 Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 22:43:15 -0500 De: Brandon Holbrook <fedora(a)theholbrooks.org> Pour :: Remi Collet <Fedora(a)FamilleCollet.com> Références: <46907AF2.4020606(a)theholbrooks.org> <46912C1F.1060405(a)FamilleCollet.com> <46927A52.5020307(a)FamilleCollet.com> Joe, any comments on building a new php-pear for epel4 that would allow us to include our existing pear packages? -Brandon Remi Collet wrote: > Remi Collet a écrit : > > >> RHEL also provides this in the "Red Hat Web Application Stack" channel >> (to be verified, i only see php-5.1.2 and pear-1.4.6 on the beta >> channel, but i know php-5.1.6 is available as we use it in my company) >> but without support AFAIK. >> > > I've checked. In fact only php-5.1.2 and pear-1.4.6 available on RHEL in > the "Red Hat Web Application Stack" channel. > > Remi. > > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-php-devel-list mailing list > Fedora-php-devel-list(a)redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-php-devel-list >

4 3

Pear in EL-4
by Brandon Holbrook 10 Jul '07

10 Jul '07

All, it doesn't look like anyone has attempted to branch their pear packages for EL-4. I received a request recently for Mail_Mime to be included in EL-4 as a dependency for roundcube (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225575) However, I am quickly finding out this isn't just a simple branch-and-build. It looks like the php-pear package in core is still arch-specific and built from php's srpm... which puts up major roadblocks for making pear packages noarch and dependent on the rpm-version of PEAR instead of PHP. Has anyone attempted to build pear packages on top of EL-4's existing pear package? Would it (ideally) be possible to build a new php-pear.noarch RPM as part of epel? There is already a 1.4.11 RPM in the centosplus repo that is exactly what we need. If not, we need to decided on a new pear policy for EL4, either no pear packages or craft a new arch-specific spec file template. -Brandon

2 2

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

php-devel July 2007