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

Re: [Fedora-packaging] PHP guidelines



On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 14:54 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
> The documentation is here:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192422#c3
> 
That's not documentation.  That's a documented bug.

> So it seems that the way the redhat-rpm-config package is set up, you
> must have a %build section to generate a debuginfo package.  Since all
> php-pear packages are noarch and do not produce binaries, we do not
> need debuginfo packages, and therefore do not need a %build section.
> 
Of course.  No one has said that the bug bears on the php guidelines in
this manner.  It bears on it as an example of the hackiness of rpm (or
in this case the rpm system we are using to package Fedora, which
includes rpm, redhat-rpm-config, etc).

> Secondly, it has been indicated that this design is hacky.  Perhaps a
> bug filed against redhat-rpm-config can be filed to try and fix this
> hack in a better way.
> 
Sure.  Ralf, do you want to file that bug since jbj didn't have the
courtesy to retarget your original one?

>> If php were to fail to process a section anytime I put extra spaces
>> after my php tag "<?php  " would that be expected behaviour?  Now if
the
>> php maintainer closed the bug saying, "Because of the way we coded
php,
>> that's the way it works" would it then be expected behaviour?

> In php if you end your script file with "?> " (ie, you have a space
> after the >) then header information will be printed out and you will
> not be able to change the header tags after this point.  This is
> expected behavior.  In the same case as we have, the way
> redhat-rpm-config is set up, it is expected behavior that omitting
> %build will omit a debuginfo rpm.  If this needs to be fixed then I
> would suggest filing a bug against redhat-rpm-config, not rpm.

You're off on a tangent.

Read again what I wrote -- it's not about a feature that's in php
(well, actually a feature of the web server) "?> ", it's about a
hypothetical bug discovery process involving "<?php ".

-Toshio

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


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