[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Fedora-packaging] PHP packaging policy notes

On 7/4/06, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs math uh edu> wrote:
>>>>> "CS" == Christopher Stone <chris stone 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

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

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

I have updated the template spec file here:

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.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]