[Fedora-packaging] PHP packaging policy notes

[Christopher Stone]

On 7/4/06, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs at math.uh.edu> wrote:
> >>>>> "CS" == Christopher Stone <chris.stone at gmail.com> writes:
> CS> Note pear and pecl modules both need to get path infomation in the
> CS> same way:
>
> Doesn't look the same to me; one calls "pear", the other calls
> "pecl".  Are you saying that those two directories will always be
> identical even though two different programs are called to figure that
> out?

I meant they get the information in the same way, yes.  Basically the
only difference is one uses the pear command and one uses the pecl
command.


> [Smarty]
> CS> If there is something wrong with installing it in
> CS> %_datadir, where should it go instead?
>
> Well, thankfully every Perl and Python class library doesn't go in
> %_datadir; we'd have thousands and thousands of directories there.
> Why not some PHP-specific place?

/usr/share/php/Smarty is definately smarter ;-)


>
> CS> How is this different than: Requires(post): php-pear
>
> We don't use Requires(post): glibc when we want to call
> /sbin/ldconfig.
>

I have updated the template spec file here:
http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/spectemplate-pear.spec

I am assuming that the php-pear package drops in the %{__pear} and
%{__pecl} macros as suggested by Nicolas.

> [ || : bits]
> CS> Why are these no longer wanted?  First I am told to put them in, and
> CS> now I am told not to.
>
> I was asked to remove them and told they were no longer necessary for
> one of my packages, but now I can't find it where that was.  (I think
> it was the denyhosts review, but that ticket seems to be missing from
> bugzilla completely for whatever reason.)
>
> Honestly I don't fully understand the issue so don't take what I wrote
> as the way things have to be.

I have left these in for now, rather be safe than sorry.