From fedora at theholbrooks.org Sun Jul 8 05:49:38 2007 From: fedora at theholbrooks.org (Brandon Holbrook) Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2007 00:49:38 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] Pear in EL-4 Message-ID: <46907AF2.4020606@theholbrooks.org> 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 From Fedora at FamilleCollet.com Sun Jul 8 18:25:35 2007 From: Fedora at FamilleCollet.com (Remi Collet) Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2007 20:25:35 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] Pear in EL-4 In-Reply-To: <46907AF2.4020606@theholbrooks.org> References: <46907AF2.4020606@theholbrooks.org> Message-ID: <46912C1F.1060405@FamilleCollet.com> Brandon Holbrook a ?crit : > All, it doesn't look like anyone has attempted to branch their pear > packages for EL-4. The actual template for pear extension Requires pear >= 1:1.4.9-1.2 Previous pear were really buggy for packaging. A lot of stuff has been made to get this template. > 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... It's arch because build from the php SRPM, but really noarch. > 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. This php-pear-1.4.11 is probably provided to works with php-5.1.6 also in this repo. 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 don't think update from arch to noarch is supported in EL4 (i remember the problem on FC3 which requires a special yum configuration) > 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. > For the RPM i maintained, i choose to push them only on EL5, But of course, i'm ok to investigated on this issue. I will prefer to say php-pear extensions are provided for php-5.1.6 / pear-1.4.11 (RH Web. App Stack or CentOS Plus) Remi > -Brandon > From Fedora at FamilleCollet.com Mon Jul 9 18:11:30 2007 From: Fedora at FamilleCollet.com (Remi Collet) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:11:30 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] Pear in EL-4 In-Reply-To: <46912C1F.1060405@FamilleCollet.com> References: <46907AF2.4020606@theholbrooks.org> <46912C1F.1060405@FamilleCollet.com> Message-ID: <46927A52.5020307@FamilleCollet.com> Remi Collet a ?crit : > 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. From Fedora at FamilleCollet.com Tue Jul 10 05:13:48 2007 From: Fedora at FamilleCollet.com (Remi Collet) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:13:48 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] Register PECl extensions ? In-Reply-To: <467E0C90.1060202@FamilleCollet.com> References: <467E0C90.1060202@FamilleCollet.com> Message-ID: <4693158C.5060605@FamilleCollet.com> I've just submit "php-pecl-phar" to review. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247515 This introduce some new stuff for PECL extension. I done this because it requires PHP >= 5.2.0, so will only be push to Fedora >= 7 (with pear >= 1.5.0) This can be a "study case" if we want a (new) pecl template. 1 bad point : this introduce a new dependence on php-pear for pecl extensions. Remi. From jorton at redhat.com Tue Jul 10 16:00:34 2007 From: jorton at redhat.com (Joe Orton) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:00:34 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] Register PECl extensions ? In-Reply-To: <4693158C.5060605@FamilleCollet.com> References: <467E0C90.1060202@FamilleCollet.com> <4693158C.5060605@FamilleCollet.com> Message-ID: <20070710160034.GA32267@redhat.com> On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 07:13:48AM +0200, Remi Collet wrote: > I've just submit "php-pecl-phar" to review. > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247515 > > This introduce some new stuff for PECL extension. Would it be useful to define some macros for the "pecl install"/"pecl uninstall" %post/postun invocations in macros.pear? %define pecl_install %{__pecl} install --nodeps --soft --force --register-only --nobuild %define pecl_uninstall %{__pecl} uninstall --nodeps --ignore-errors --register-only ? joe From Fedora at FamilleCollet.com Tue Jul 10 18:42:19 2007 From: Fedora at FamilleCollet.com (Remi Collet) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:42:19 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] Register PECl extensions ? In-Reply-To: <20070710160034.GA32267@redhat.com> References: <467E0C90.1060202@FamilleCollet.com> <4693158C.5060605@FamilleCollet.com> <20070710160034.GA32267@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4693D30B.5030101@FamilleCollet.com> Joe Orton a ?crit : > Would it be useful to define some macros for the "pecl install"/"pecl > uninstall" %post/postun invocations in macros.pear? > > %define pecl_install %{__pecl} install --nodeps --soft --force --register-only --nobuild > %define pecl_uninstall %{__pecl} uninstall --nodeps --ignore-errors --register-only > > ? > > First idea is to add the missing "php/pecl_extdir" (php-config --extension-dir) which is needed in all extension package (probably in macros.php rather than in macros.pear...). pecl_(un)install macro (and probably pear_(un)install too) could be usefull when a new PEAR version changes options : for example php-pear 1.6.1 requires "-d download_dir=$(mktemp -d)" to work (ok, it's probably a bug) This will avoid to break build system or need to update all extension spec files on php-pear update. But this will requires a Guidelines update... Remi P.S. : Joe does this mean you are favorable to the "register" of pecl extension ? > joe > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-php-devel-list mailing list > Fedora-php-devel-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-php-devel-list > > > From Fedora at FamilleCollet.com Thu Jul 12 04:42:55 2007 From: Fedora at FamilleCollet.com (Remi Collet) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 06:42:55 +0200 Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fedora-php-devel-list] Pear in EL-4] Message-ID: <4695B14F.8050708@FamilleCollet.com> 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 Pour :: Remi Collet R?f?rences: <46907AF2.4020606 at theholbrooks.org> <46912C1F.1060405 at FamilleCollet.com> <46927A52.5020307 at 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 ?crit : > > >> 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 at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-php-devel-list > From fedora at theholbrooks.org Thu Jul 12 05:50:48 2007 From: fedora at theholbrooks.org (Brandon Holbrook) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 00:50:48 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fedora-php-devel-list] Pear in EL-4] In-Reply-To: <4695B14F.8050708@FamilleCollet.com> References: <4695B14F.8050708@FamilleCollet.com> Message-ID: <4695C138.4030401@theholbrooks.org> Heh, thanks Remi... I didn't even pay attention :) Remi Collet wrote: > 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 > Pour :: Remi Collet > R?f?rences: <46907AF2.4020606 at theholbrooks.org> > <46912C1F.1060405 at FamilleCollet.com> <46927A52.5020307 at 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 ?crit : >> >> >> >>> 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 at redhat.com >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-php-devel-list >> >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-php-devel-list mailing list > Fedora-php-devel-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-php-devel-list > From jorton at redhat.com Thu Jul 12 09:34:37 2007 From: jorton at redhat.com (Joe Orton) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:34:37 +0100 Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fedora-php-devel-list] Pear in EL-4] In-Reply-To: <4695C138.4030401@theholbrooks.org> References: <4695B14F.8050708@FamilleCollet.com> <4695C138.4030401@theholbrooks.org> Message-ID: <20070712093437.GA16231@redhat.com> On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 12:50:48AM -0500, Brandon Holbrook wrote: > >Joe, any comments on building a new php-pear for epel4 that would allow > >us to include our existing pear packages? If you want to maintain in EPEL newer versions any packages which I maintain in Fedora/RHEL please just go ahead and do it! The Stack SRPMs are on ftp.redhat.com somewhere if they would be any use (they are effectively backports of Fedora packages to RHEL4). Regards, joe From sheltren at cs.ucsb.edu Thu Jul 12 10:45:32 2007 From: sheltren at cs.ucsb.edu (Jeff Sheltren) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 06:45:32 -0400 Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fedora-php-devel-list] Pear in EL-4] In-Reply-To: <4695B14F.8050708@FamilleCollet.com> References: <4695B14F.8050708@FamilleCollet.com> Message-ID: <825450AB-BA2C-443B-A2CE-BCB2D7FA0149@cs.ucsb.edu> On Jul 12, 2007, at 12:42 AM, Remi Collet wrote: > 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 > Pour :: Remi Collet > R?f?rences: <46907AF2.4020606 at theholbrooks.org> > <46912C1F.1060405 at FamilleCollet.com> > <46927A52.5020307 at FamilleCollet.com> > > > > Joe, any comments on building a new php-pear for epel4 that would > allow > us to include our existing pear packages? > > -Brandon > Hi Brandon, the problem is that EPEL has explicitly stated that it does not want to replace packages which are already part of RHEL. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ GuidelinesAndPolicies#head-5db8a0be339548ee7553b9360071ce7021e8535b Remi, it may be better to bring this up on epel-devel-list and get a definite answer there. And, yes, I would really love for this list to set a 'reply-to' header :) -Jeff From jorton at redhat.com Thu Jul 12 15:52:54 2007 From: jorton at redhat.com (Joe Orton) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:52:54 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] Register PECl extensions ? In-Reply-To: <4693D30B.5030101@FamilleCollet.com> References: <467E0C90.1060202@FamilleCollet.com> <4693158C.5060605@FamilleCollet.com> <20070710160034.GA32267@redhat.com> <4693D30B.5030101@FamilleCollet.com> Message-ID: <20070712155254.GB21471@redhat.com> On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 08:42:19PM +0200, Remi Collet wrote: > First idea is to add the missing "php/pecl_extdir" (php-config > --extension-dir) which is needed in all extension package (probably in > macros.php rather than in macros.pear...). This is just the directory to contain the DSO? So we just need: %php_extdir %{_libdir}/php/modules added to macros.php, correct? > pecl_(un)install macro (and probably pear_(un)install too) could be usefull > when a new PEAR version changes options : > for example php-pear 1.6.1 requires "-d download_dir=$(mktemp -d)" to > work (ok, it's probably a bug) Yeah :) I'd rather fix that bug than workaround it I think. > But this will requires a Guidelines update... Since this is new ground let's work out everything that's needed before submitting anything, and get it in and working with your APC package in review. > P.S. : Joe does this mean you are favorable to the "register" of pecl > extension ? Sure, it seems like a good idea to me. Regards, joe From Fedora at FamilleCollet.com Sun Jul 15 09:47:16 2007 From: Fedora at FamilleCollet.com (Remi Collet) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:47:16 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] php-pear 1.6.1 In-Reply-To: <20070712153945.GA21471@redhat.com> References: <20070710160448.GB32267@redhat.com> <4693D6A7.2020708@FamilleCollet.com> <20070712153945.GA21471@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4699ED24.2070700@FamilleCollet.com> Joe Orton a ?crit : > 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 From Fedora at FamilleCollet.com Sun Jul 15 15:19:16 2007 From: Fedora at FamilleCollet.com (Remi Collet) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 17:19:16 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] Register PECl extensions ? In-Reply-To: <20070712155254.GB21471@redhat.com> References: <467E0C90.1060202@FamilleCollet.com> <4693158C.5060605@FamilleCollet.com> <20070710160034.GA32267@redhat.com> <4693D30B.5030101@FamilleCollet.com> <20070712155254.GB21471@redhat.com> Message-ID: <469A3AF4.3010009@FamilleCollet.com> Joe Orton a ?crit : > %php_extdir %{_libdir}/php/modules > > added to macros.php, correct? Yes. or : %php_extdir %(%{_bindir}/php --extension-dir) > >> pecl_(un)install macro (and probably pear_(un)install too) could be usefull >> when a new PEAR version changes options : >> for example php-pear 1.6.1 requires "-d download_dir=$(mktemp -d)" to >> work (ok, it's probably a bug) > > Yeah :) I'd rather fix that bug than workaround it I think. Patch proposed upstream... waiting. http://pear.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=11517 > >> But this will requires a Guidelines update... > > Since this is new ground let's work out everything that's needed before > submitting anything, and get it in and working with your APC package in > review. It's php-pecl-phar ;) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247515 It have been approved by tibbs. Only pushed to "devel" to make it more available for tests. I will work on the PHP Guidelines Draft ASAP (Waiting for feedback before). I Think i will propose to use something like : %post %if 0%{?pecl_install:1} %{pecl_install} %{pecl_xmldir}/%{name}.xml >/dev/null || : %endif In this way, the same spec could be use with old PEAR version (where "pear install" doesn't work, especially in EPEL) and with new where it works (and where macros are defined, Fedora >= 7). Because, i don't find a simple solution to check PEAR version in scriptlet (without using rpm command). Remi. From chris.stone at gmail.com Sun Jul 15 23:02:54 2007 From: chris.stone at gmail.com (Christopher Stone) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 16:02:54 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] PHP Dependency Problems on EL5 Message-ID: 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 From jorton at redhat.com Mon Jul 16 13:01:42 2007 From: jorton at redhat.com (Joe Orton) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:01:42 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] Re: php-pear 1.6.1 In-Reply-To: <4699ED24.2070700@FamilleCollet.com> References: <20070710160448.GB32267@redhat.com> <4693D6A7.2020708@FamilleCollet.com> <20070712153945.GA21471@redhat.com> <4699ED24.2070700@FamilleCollet.com> Message-ID: <20070716130142.GC9029@redhat.com> On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 11:47:16AM +0200, Remi Collet wrote: > The solution seems to use (very short resume) : > php install-pear.php *.tgz Thanks for working on this! That does seem a lot cleaner than the stuff from PLD which was the other proposal to bootstrap from a .tgz. But it's still essentially a hack because it relies on using install-pear.php extracted from PEAR CVS :( Tim J - did you get anywhere with improving the management of the release .phars upstream? If we are resigned to the fact that there will be no traction on that issue upstream then I think we should go with Remi's method described here. Any dissent? joe From jorton at redhat.com Mon Jul 16 13:05:34 2007 From: jorton at redhat.com (Joe Orton) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:05:34 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] Register PECl extensions ? In-Reply-To: <469A3AF4.3010009@FamilleCollet.com> References: <467E0C90.1060202@FamilleCollet.com> <4693158C.5060605@FamilleCollet.com> <20070710160034.GA32267@redhat.com> <4693D30B.5030101@FamilleCollet.com> <20070712155254.GB21471@redhat.com> <469A3AF4.3010009@FamilleCollet.com> Message-ID: <20070716130534.GD9029@redhat.com> On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 05:19:16PM +0200, Remi Collet wrote: > Joe Orton a ?crit : > > > %php_extdir %{_libdir}/php/modules > > > > added to macros.php, correct? > > Yes. > or : > %php_extdir %(%{_bindir}/php --extension-dir) It's not like this is going to change often :) %php_extdir and %pecl_*install are now in dist-fc7; how does it look? > > Yeah :) I'd rather fix that bug than workaround it I think. > > Patch proposed upstream... waiting. > http://pear.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=11517 Thanks for chasing that! > I Think i will propose to use something like : > > %post > %if 0%{?pecl_install:1} > %{pecl_install} %{pecl_xmldir}/%{name}.xml >/dev/null || : > %endif +1 to that. joe From Fedora at FamilleCollet.com Mon Jul 16 17:12:35 2007 From: Fedora at FamilleCollet.com (Remi Collet) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 19:12:35 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] Register PECl extensions ? In-Reply-To: <20070716130534.GD9029@redhat.com> References: <467E0C90.1060202@FamilleCollet.com> <4693158C.5060605@FamilleCollet.com> <20070710160034.GA32267@redhat.com> <4693D30B.5030101@FamilleCollet.com> <20070712155254.GB21471@redhat.com> <469A3AF4.3010009@FamilleCollet.com> <20070716130534.GD9029@redhat.com> Message-ID: <469BA703.70801@FamilleCollet.com> Joe Orton a ?crit : > > %pecl_*install are now in dist-fc7; how does it look? I've change the macros.pear to remove the %define (doesn't works with). All tests done seems ok. Remi. P.S. i commit the new file on CVS to check my access... From lists at timj.co.uk Mon Jul 16 23:33:35 2007 From: lists at timj.co.uk (Tim Jackson) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:33:35 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] Re: php-pear 1.6.1 In-Reply-To: <20070716130142.GC9029@redhat.com> References: <20070710160448.GB32267@redhat.com> <4693D6A7.2020708@FamilleCollet.com> <20070712153945.GA21471@redhat.com> <4699ED24.2070700@FamilleCollet.com> <20070716130142.GC9029@redhat.com> Message-ID: <469C004F.9020608@timj.co.uk> Joe Orton wrote: > On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 11:47:16AM +0200, Remi Collet wrote: >> The solution seems to use (very short resume) : >> php install-pear.php *.tgz Nice. > That does seem a lot cleaner than the stuff from PLD which was the other > proposal to bootstrap from a .tgz. But it's still essentially a hack > because it relies on using install-pear.php extracted from PEAR CVS :( True but it's only one file. > Tim J - did you get anywhere with improving the management of the > release .phars upstream? I got agreement but have not had time to follow through to get exact instructions/permission. I still can do that but would rather avoid it if Remi has a reasonably nice solution as it puts another (permanent) dependency on me. > If we are resigned to the fact that there will be no traction on that > issue upstream then I think we should go with Remi's method described > here. Any dissent? I haven't actually tried it but it looks smart to me, and solves the permanent phar problem at a stroke. Tim From lists at timj.co.uk Mon Jul 16 23:35:01 2007 From: lists at timj.co.uk (Tim Jackson) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:35:01 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] PHP Dependency Problems on EL5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <469C00A5.5080006@timj.co.uk> Christopher Stone wrote: > Is php-mcrypt and php-mhash not built on EL-5? No, don't think so. > What are the missing requirement? IIRC they weren't built on Fedora until relatively recently and only came via the Extras php-extras package (which provided some "missing" modules). Tim From Fedora at FamilleCollet.com Tue Jul 17 05:15:41 2007 From: Fedora at FamilleCollet.com (Remi Collet) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 07:15:41 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] Re: php-pear 1.6.1 In-Reply-To: <469C004F.9020608@timj.co.uk> References: <20070710160448.GB32267@redhat.com> <4693D6A7.2020708@FamilleCollet.com> <20070712153945.GA21471@redhat.com> <4699ED24.2070700@FamilleCollet.com> <20070716130142.GC9029@redhat.com> <469C004F.9020608@timj.co.uk> Message-ID: <469C507D.80602@FamilleCollet.com> Tim Jackson a ?crit : >> That does seem a lot cleaner than the stuff from PLD which was the other >> proposal to bootstrap from a .tgz. But it's still essentially a hack >> because it relies on using install-pear.php extracted from PEAR CVS :( > > True but it's only one file. Do you think it could be possible to ask upstream to add this file to PEAR tarball ? (at top level, as package.xml, not to be installed but only to be used by distro packager) Remi. From Fedora at FamilleCollet.com Tue Jul 17 05:30:10 2007 From: Fedora at FamilleCollet.com (Remi Collet) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 07:30:10 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] RFC for PHP Guidelines Update Message-ID: <469C53E2.1040702@FamilleCollet.com> 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. From icon at fedoraproject.org Tue Jul 17 12:42:13 2007 From: icon at fedoraproject.org (Konstantin Ryabitsev) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 08:42:13 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] Zend's PDT Message-ID: So... Does anyone feel brave enough to try packaging PDT? :) http://zend.com/pdt/ Cheers, -- Konstantin Ryabitsev Montr?al, Qu?bec From jorton at redhat.com Wed Jul 18 12:49:24 2007 From: jorton at redhat.com (Joe Orton) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 13:49:24 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] Re: php-pear 1.6.1 In-Reply-To: <469C004F.9020608@timj.co.uk> References: <20070710160448.GB32267@redhat.com> <4693D6A7.2020708@FamilleCollet.com> <20070712153945.GA21471@redhat.com> <4699ED24.2070700@FamilleCollet.com> <20070716130142.GC9029@redhat.com> <469C004F.9020608@timj.co.uk> Message-ID: <20070718124923.GB27810@redhat.com> On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 12:33:35AM +0100, Tim Jackson wrote: > Joe Orton wrote: > > Tim J - did you get anywhere with improving the management of the > > release .phars upstream? > > I got agreement but have not had time to follow through to get exact > instructions/permission. I still can do that but would rather avoid it > if Remi has a reasonably nice solution as it puts another (permanent) > dependency on me. OK, fair enough, let's go with Remi's solution. Remi, please feel free to go ahead and commit your changes to upgrade to 1.6.x! Regards, joe From jorton at redhat.com Wed Jul 18 12:59:45 2007 From: jorton at redhat.com (Joe Orton) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 13:59:45 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] RFC for PHP Guidelines Update In-Reply-To: <469C53E2.1040702@FamilleCollet.com> References: <469C53E2.1040702@FamilleCollet.com> Message-ID: <20070718125945.GC27810@redhat.com> On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 07:30:10AM +0200, Remi Collet wrote: > 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. +1, looks good, thanks for writing this up. joe From lists at timj.co.uk Wed Jul 18 14:08:44 2007 From: lists at timj.co.uk (Tim Jackson) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:08:44 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] /var/lib/php/session Message-ID: <469E1EEC.1060608@timj.co.uk> 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 From lists at timj.co.uk Wed Jul 18 14:15:53 2007 From: lists at timj.co.uk (Tim Jackson) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:15:53 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] RFC for PHP Guidelines Update In-Reply-To: <469C53E2.1040702@FamilleCollet.com> References: <469C53E2.1040702@FamilleCollet.com> Message-ID: <469E2099.8020402@timj.co.uk> Remi Collet wrote: > Please read the draft : > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PHP Thanks Remi! > Comments on "channels" are also welcome ;) I've been meaning to say it for a while, but if anyone wants to try the latest (CVS) version of PEAR_Command_Packaging, I did add support for both: a) building channel packages, and b) building packages that require external channels modelled around Chris S's PHPUnit3 package and associated channel. Not heavily tested but any feedback would be welcome. Tim From jorton at redhat.com Wed Jul 18 14:18:33 2007 From: jorton at redhat.com (Joe Orton) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:18:33 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] /var/lib/php/session In-Reply-To: <469E1EEC.1060608@timj.co.uk> References: <469E1EEC.1060608@timj.co.uk> Message-ID: <20070718141833.GC28761@redhat.com> On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 03:08:44PM +0100, Tim Jackson wrote: > 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? The directory needs to be chgrp apache, so the containing package really needs the "Requires(pre): httpd" to ensure that user exists. So having php-common require httpd defeats the point of the split. It's a hard problem because the permissions under which php-cgi might be executed are not really predictable. What if it's used with libghttpd, or httpd and suexec, etc... joe From lists at timj.co.uk Wed Jul 18 14:21:27 2007 From: lists at timj.co.uk (Tim Jackson) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:21:27 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] Dependencies on php vs php-common Message-ID: <469E21E7.30007@timj.co.uk> 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 From lists at timj.co.uk Wed Jul 18 14:43:18 2007 From: lists at timj.co.uk (Tim Jackson) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:43:18 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] /var/lib/php/session In-Reply-To: <20070718141833.GC28761@redhat.com> References: <469E1EEC.1060608@timj.co.uk> <20070718141833.GC28761@redhat.com> Message-ID: <469E2706.5060508@timj.co.uk> Joe Orton wrote: > On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 03:08:44PM +0100, Tim Jackson wrote: >> /var/lib/php/session >> So I think we should probably move it to php-common - what do others think? > > The directory needs to be chgrp apache, so the containing package really > needs the "Requires(pre): httpd" to ensure that user exists. Hmm, yes, I'd forgotten about the ownership issue. That's a tricky one. > It's a hard problem because the permissions under which php-cgi might be > executed are not really predictable. What if it's used with libghttpd, > or httpd and suexec, etc... Quite. Oh well, perhaps it is in the best place it can be, then... Tim From jorton at redhat.com Wed Jul 18 14:58:31 2007 From: jorton at redhat.com (Joe Orton) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:58:31 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] Dependencies on php vs php-common In-Reply-To: <469E21E7.30007@timj.co.uk> References: <469E21E7.30007@timj.co.uk> Message-ID: <20070718145831.GD28761@redhat.com> On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 03:21:27PM +0100, Tim Jackson wrote: > 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) Agreed that PECL packages should only have dependencies on the virtual provides. php-pear packages may have some dependency on PHP language versions; not sure about this one. e.g. for something like squirrel it probably is correct since it's a webapp and is only set up to work out of the box with httpd + the PHP Apache SAPI. joe From lists at timj.co.uk Wed Jul 18 15:08:27 2007 From: lists at timj.co.uk (Tim Jackson) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:08:27 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] Dependencies on php vs php-common In-Reply-To: <20070718145831.GD28761@redhat.com> References: <469E21E7.30007@timj.co.uk> <20070718145831.GD28761@redhat.com> Message-ID: <469E2CEB.6050704@timj.co.uk> Joe Orton wrote: > Agreed that PECL packages should only have dependencies on the virtual > provides. php-pear packages may have some dependency on PHP language > versions; not sure about this one. But even if they do have a dep on a language version, shouldn't that be "php-common >= x" rather than "php >= x"? Tim From jorton at redhat.com Thu Jul 19 10:02:51 2007 From: jorton at redhat.com (Joe Orton) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:02:51 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] Dependencies on php vs php-common In-Reply-To: <469E2CEB.6050704@timj.co.uk> References: <469E21E7.30007@timj.co.uk> <20070718145831.GD28761@redhat.com> <469E2CEB.6050704@timj.co.uk> Message-ID: <20070719100251.GB17258@redhat.com> On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 04:08:27PM +0100, Tim Jackson wrote: > Joe Orton wrote: > > > Agreed that PECL packages should only have dependencies on the virtual > > provides. php-pear packages may have some dependency on PHP language > > versions; not sure about this one. > > But even if they do have a dep on a language version, shouldn't that be > "php-common >= x" rather than "php >= x"? I guess a virtual provide would be better even here, but the "PHP language" is essentially unversioned so there's nothing really appropriate. joe From Fedora at FamilleCollet.com Thu Jul 19 16:10:59 2007 From: Fedora at FamilleCollet.com (Remi Collet) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:10:59 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] Dependencies on php vs php-common In-Reply-To: <469E21E7.30007@timj.co.uk> References: <469E21E7.30007@timj.co.uk> Message-ID: <469F8D13.4080602@FamilleCollet.com> Tim Jackson a ?crit : > 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 It probably should only requires php-cli > php-pear-DB-1.7.6-7.fc6 > php-pear-PHPUnit-1.3.2-1.fc6 Requires PHP is not required as php-pear already required. But this requires are only to check minimal version as mentioned upstream. Requires php-common should be enough even for EPEL 5 (I love as many other use the same spec file for all branches) EPEL 4 is another problem... Remi From Fedora at FamilleCollet.com Thu Jul 19 18:07:37 2007 From: Fedora at FamilleCollet.com (Remi Collet) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:07:37 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] php-pear 1.6.1 On the road... In-Reply-To: <20070718124923.GB27810@redhat.com> References: <20070710160448.GB32267@redhat.com> <4693D6A7.2020708@FamilleCollet.com> <20070712153945.GA21471@redhat.com> <4699ED24.2070700@FamilleCollet.com> <20070716130142.GC9029@redhat.com> <469C004F.9020608@timj.co.uk> <20070718124923.GB27810@redhat.com> Message-ID: <469FA869.2020000@FamilleCollet.com> > OK, fair enough, let's go with Remi's solution. Remi, please feel free > to go ahead and commit your changes to upgrade to 1.6.x! Some works before I commit the new spec : I build : php-pear-1.5.4-4.noarch.rpm is build from actual spec file in CVS php-pear-1.5.4-5.fc8.noarch.rpm is build using new spec file ## Check the RPM content => OK $ rpm -qlp php-pear-1.5.4-4.noarch.rpm | sort >oldrpm $ rpm -qlp php-pear-1.5.4-5.fc8.noarch.rpm | sort >newrpm $ diff oldrpm newrpm && echo OK OK $ mkdir new old $ (cd old; rpm2cpio php-pear-1.5.4-4.noarch.rpm| cpio -id) 4336 blocs $ (cd new; rpm2cpio php-pear-1.5.4-5.fc8.noarch.rpm | cpio -id) 4350 blocs ## check the installed files $ LANG=C diff -r --brief old new Files old/usr/share/pear/.channels/__uri.reg and new/usr/share/pear/.channels/__uri.reg differ Files old/usr/share/pear/.channels/pear.php.net.reg and new/usr/share/pear/.channels/pear.php.net.reg differ Files old/usr/share/pear/.channels/pecl.php.net.reg and new/usr/share/pear/.channels/pecl.php.net.reg differ Files old/usr/share/pear/.registry/archive_tar.reg and new/usr/share/pear/.registry/archive_tar.reg differ Files old/usr/share/pear/.registry/console_getopt.reg and new/usr/share/pear/.registry/console_getopt.reg differ Files old/usr/share/pear/.registry/pear.reg and new/usr/share/pear/.registry/pear.reg differ Files old/usr/share/pear/.registry/structures_graph.reg and new/usr/share/pear/.registry/structures_graph.reg differ Files old/usr/share/pear/.registry/xml_rpc.reg and new/usr/share/pear/.registry/xml_rpc.reg differ ## diff are mainly timestamp, and buggy "dirtree" (not used) All seems OK, so, i go.. From Fedora at FamilleCollet.com Sat Jul 21 11:09:53 2007 From: Fedora at FamilleCollet.com (Remi Collet) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 13:09:53 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] php-pear 1.6.1 On the road... In-Reply-To: <469FA869.2020000@FamilleCollet.com> References: <20070710160448.GB32267@redhat.com> <4693D6A7.2020708@FamilleCollet.com> <20070712153945.GA21471@redhat.com> <4699ED24.2070700@FamilleCollet.com> <20070716130142.GC9029@redhat.com> <469C004F.9020608@timj.co.uk> <20070718124923.GB27810@redhat.com> <469FA869.2020000@FamilleCollet.com> Message-ID: <46A1E981.3010308@FamilleCollet.com> Remi Collet a ?crit : > Files old/usr/share/pear/.registry/xml_rpc.reg and > new/usr/share/pear/.registry/xml_rpc.reg differ > > ## diff are mainly timestamp, and buggy "dirtree" (not used) Ok, it's a little bug. Reported upstream with patch proposal : http://pear.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=11657 Remi.