[Fedora-packaging] PHP packaging policy notes

[Enrico Scholz]

chris.stone at gmail.com ("Christopher Stone") writes:

> pear packages have a line in the spec file of the form:
> Provides: php-pear(Foo) = %{version}-%{release}
>
> This provides the upstream software version, not the package version.
> This is what we use on our requires line.  So for example we do not
> have:
> Requires: php-pear >= ..  we have:
> Requires: php-pear(PEAR) >= ...

Such virtual provides are ok but you should keep in mind, that there is
no ordering during installation; e.g. it is undefined whether

| %package -n module
| Provides: php-pear(MODULE) = 1.0

or

| %package -n module-ng
| Provides: php-pear(MODULE) = 2.0

will be installed by

| Requires: php-pear(MODULE) >= 1.0

(because of the shortest-package-name-wins rule, 'module' will be the
candidate for 'rpm')


When you enforce such declarations for php-pear packages; should not
every (non-pear) package have similar Provides:? Or, what would make
php-pear an exception here? Have php-pear modules such an unstable API
that missing version information would cause problems with a significant
amount of packages?



Enrico
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 480 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20060708/fd751d4f/attachment.sig>