From chris.stone at gmail.com Sun Nov 25 18:48:17 2007 From: chris.stone at gmail.com (Christopher Stone) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 10:48:17 -0800 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] pecl list-upgrades not working? Message-ID: I maintain several pear and pecl packages, and I usually check for pear updates using the pear list-upgrades alpha command. However I noticed that none of my pecl packages show up with a pecl list command. Is there a bug in the way we are packaging our pecl packages or is this a bug with pecl? I'm still using Fedora 7, BTW so I may not have the latest and greatest php-pear package. From chris.stone at gmail.com Sun Nov 25 20:24:29 2007 From: chris.stone at gmail.com (Christopher Stone) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 12:24:29 -0800 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] PHP packages with optional requires Message-ID: This message is in regards to PHP packages that have optional requirements such as Auth. I have added a section to the PHP guidelines draft a while back with respect to this[1]. This needs to be brought up now because the php-pear-PHPUnit package needs to be split up into its optional components (or atleast at a minimum the graphviz component needs to be split out). Please see bug 266941 [2] for more details. If anyone has any thoughts, ideas, or concerns about this issue, please bring it to my attention, as I should probably fix php-pear-PHPUnit as soon as possible. Thanks in advance. -Chris [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PHP#head-d17f63e05f4104fca50f0862125e4cf8490591bf [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=266941#c7 From Fedora at FamilleCollet.com Mon Nov 26 05:21:36 2007 From: Fedora at FamilleCollet.com (Remi Collet) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 06:21:36 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] pecl list-upgrades not working? In-Reply-To: References: <4749DC17.2000401@FamilleCollet.com> Message-ID: <474A57E0.5070005@FamilleCollet.com> Christopher Stone a ?crit : > Ah I see, I wonder why minor point releases are not updated on > supported Fedora distributions. You think there could be a > possibility we could co-maintain php-pear with Joe and do point > releases on supported stable fedora repositories? I'm already co-maintainer on php-pear. pear-1.6.x use a totally new spec (1.5.x use an upstream .phar, 1.6.x use the upstream .tar.gz). I agree we should push 1.6.x to F7 (it's a security update because pear < 1.5.4 as security issues) but we must ask Joe about this. Regards From Fedora at FamilleCollet.com Mon Nov 26 05:43:39 2007 From: Fedora at FamilleCollet.com (Remi Collet) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 06:43:39 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] pecl list-upgrades not working? In-Reply-To: <474A57E0.5070005@FamilleCollet.com> References: <4749DC17.2000401@FamilleCollet.com> <474A57E0.5070005@FamilleCollet.com> Message-ID: <474A5D0B.5000602@FamilleCollet.com> Remi Collet a ?crit : > I agree we should push 1.6.x to F7 (it's a security update because pear > < 1.5.4 as security issues) but we must ask Joe about this. Notes : - 1.5.0 to 1.6.2 is not a minor update - it will need a rebuild of all pecl extension - it will add a Requires on the new pear wersion Remi. P.S. i can't remenber if an upgrade to 1.5.4 will be possible. pear 1.6.x need some patches (included upstream in 1.6.2) to have working register of pecl extension : http://pear.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=11420 http://pear.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=11517 http://pear.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=11657 http://pear.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=12009 From jorton at redhat.com Mon Nov 26 09:18:21 2007 From: jorton at redhat.com (Joe Orton) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:18:21 +0000 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] pecl list-upgrades not working? In-Reply-To: <474A5D0B.5000602@FamilleCollet.com> References: <4749DC17.2000401@FamilleCollet.com> <474A57E0.5070005@FamilleCollet.com> <474A5D0B.5000602@FamilleCollet.com> Message-ID: <20071126091821.GA4744@redhat.com> On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 06:43:39AM +0100, Remi Collet wrote: > Remi Collet a ?crit : > > > I agree we should push 1.6.x to F7 (it's a security update because pear > > < 1.5.4 as security issues) but we must ask Joe about this. There is no need to treat CVE-2007-2519 (the bug fixed in 1.5.4) as security-sensitive; see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=241218 > Notes : > - 1.5.0 to 1.6.2 is not a minor update > - it will need a rebuild of all pecl extension I'm not sure that's really a good idea then. Doing a 1.5.4 update, if possible, sounds safer. joe From chris.stone at gmail.com Mon Nov 26 17:36:18 2007 From: chris.stone at gmail.com (Christopher Stone) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:36:18 -0800 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] pecl list-upgrades not working? In-Reply-To: <20071126091821.GA4744@redhat.com> References: <4749DC17.2000401@FamilleCollet.com> <474A57E0.5070005@FamilleCollet.com> <474A5D0B.5000602@FamilleCollet.com> <20071126091821.GA4744@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Nov 26, 2007 1:18 AM, Joe Orton wrote: > On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 06:43:39AM +0100, Remi Collet wrote: > > Remi Collet a ?crit : > > > > > I agree we should push 1.6.x to F7 (it's a security update because pear > > > < 1.5.4 as security issues) but we must ask Joe about this. > > There is no need to treat CVE-2007-2519 (the bug fixed in 1.5.4) as > security-sensitive; see > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=241218 > > > Notes : > > - 1.5.0 to 1.6.2 is not a minor update > > - it will need a rebuild of all pecl extension > > I'm not sure that's really a good idea then. Doing a 1.5.4 update, if > possible, sounds safer. +1 on a 1.5.4 update for F-7 From Fedora at FamilleCollet.com Tue Nov 27 20:34:43 2007 From: Fedora at FamilleCollet.com (Remi Collet) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:34:43 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] pecl list-upgrades not working? In-Reply-To: <20071126091821.GA4744@redhat.com> References: <4749DC17.2000401@FamilleCollet.com> <474A57E0.5070005@FamilleCollet.com> <474A5D0B.5000602@FamilleCollet.com> <20071126091821.GA4744@redhat.com> Message-ID: <474C7F63.1040400@FamilleCollet.com> Joe Orton a ?crit : >> - 1.5.0 to 1.6.2 is not a minor update >> - it will need a rebuild of all pecl extension > > I'm not sure that's really a good idea then. Doing a 1.5.4 update, if > possible, sounds safer. I've probaly been not enough precise If we update pear to introduce a new version and macro which are required to register the pecl extension, we need a mass-rebuild, whatever is the new version (1.5.x or 1.6.x) (and new Requires). Remi From Fedora at FamilleCollet.com Fri Nov 30 06:51:27 2007 From: Fedora at FamilleCollet.com (Remi Collet) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:51:27 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] pecl list-upgrades not working? In-Reply-To: References: <4749DC17.2000401@FamilleCollet.com> <474A57E0.5070005@FamilleCollet.com> <474A5D0B.5000602@FamilleCollet.com> <20071126091821.GA4744@redhat.com> <474C7F63.1040400@FamilleCollet.com> Message-ID: <474FB2EF.1030704@FamilleCollet.com> Christopher Stone a ?crit : >> If we update pear to introduce a new version and macro which are >> required to register the pecl extension, we need a mass-rebuild, >> whatever is the new version (1.5.x or 1.6.x) (and new Requires). > > Would the pecl packages be *required* to be rebuilt? Would their > behavior be the same as they are now if they are not rebuilt? If we > rebuild the pecl packages it only makes it so they show up correctly > with the pecl command, correct? > You're right. Package not rebuild will still work without being registered. Note that some pecl extension still doesn't register on F8. Remi. From chris.stone at gmail.com Fri Nov 30 20:02:06 2007 From: chris.stone at gmail.com (Christopher Stone) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:02:06 -0800 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] pecl list-upgrades not working? In-Reply-To: <474FB2EF.1030704@FamilleCollet.com> References: <4749DC17.2000401@FamilleCollet.com> <474A57E0.5070005@FamilleCollet.com> <474A5D0B.5000602@FamilleCollet.com> <20071126091821.GA4744@redhat.com> <474C7F63.1040400@FamilleCollet.com> <474FB2EF.1030704@FamilleCollet.com> Message-ID: On Nov 29, 2007 10:51 PM, Remi Collet wrote: > Christopher Stone a ?crit : > > >> If we update pear to introduce a new version and macro which are > >> required to register the pecl extension, we need a mass-rebuild, > >> whatever is the new version (1.5.x or 1.6.x) (and new Requires). > > > > Would the pecl packages be *required* to be rebuilt? Would their > > behavior be the same as they are now if they are not rebuilt? If we > > rebuild the pecl packages it only makes it so they show up correctly > > with the pecl command, correct? > > > > > You're right. > > Package not rebuild will still work without being registered. > Note that some pecl extension still doesn't register on F8. If there is no reason to not upgrade to 1.5.4 on F-7 I would say go ahead and do it. It is not going to make much difference to me now since I plan on upgrading to F-8 soon. I would like to have a policy where minor point releases for pear are kept updated on supported Fedora releases. In theory minor point releases should not break anything, and I think it would be good to have the latest stable versions available in Fedora. Remi, do you know which pecl packages are not showing up in F8? Are any of them mine?