From Fedora at FamilleCollet.com Sun Jan 25 10:51:08 2009 From: Fedora at FamilleCollet.com (Remi Collet) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 11:51:08 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] Conflicts in PEAR extension namespace Message-ID: <497C441C.1080206@FamilleCollet.com> Hi, What I was thinking (in an quite old discussion) is now reality According to PHP Guidelines, pear extension must be named php-pear-. That's ok for standard pear.php.net channel. With not standard channel we can encounter conflicts. llaumgui is working on submitting ezComponents for review. http://ezcomponents.org/ For example, one of the extension is Mail and php-pear-Mail already exists. My proposal is : 1/ Channel package : php-channel- Virtual provides : php-channel() php-channel() Ok for existing channels (phpunit, phping, ...) already in Fedora repository 2/ Extension package : php-- Virtual provides : php-pear([ / ] ) So, for standard channel : php-pear- So we can use : Standard Channel: php-pear-Mail providing php-pear(Mail) = 1.1.14 Non standard Channel: php-ezc-Mail providing php-pear(components.ez.no/Mail) = 1.6 That means that a few packages "should" to be renamed, p.e. php-pear-PHPUnit => php-phpunit-PHPUnit (which is not really required still no conflicts exists) This packages already use the right virtual provides I will try to write this ASAP (for FPC/FESco approval) in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PHP Comments ? Remi. P.S. another solution for ezcomponents is to build php-ezcomponents from global tarball without using the pear mecanism (but I really dislike this solution) From jorton at redhat.com Mon Jan 26 14:27:36 2009 From: jorton at redhat.com (Joe Orton) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:27:36 +0000 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] Conflicts in PEAR extension namespace In-Reply-To: <497C441C.1080206@FamilleCollet.com> References: <497C441C.1080206@FamilleCollet.com> Message-ID: <20090126142736.GA10813@redhat.com> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 11:51:08AM +0100, Remi Collet wrote: > 1/ Channel package : php-channel- ... > 2/ Extension package : php-- Sounds good! Thanks for dealing with this. Regards, Joe From Fedora at FamilleCollet.com Tue Jan 27 17:02:40 2009 From: Fedora at FamilleCollet.com (Remi Collet) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:02:40 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] RFC for PHP Guidelines Update In-Reply-To: <469E2099.8020402@timj.co.uk> References: <469C53E2.1040702@FamilleCollet.com> <469E2099.8020402@timj.co.uk> Message-ID: <497F3E30.7090406@FamilleCollet.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Tim Jackson a ?crit : > 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: Well, I'm working on this. Make first SRPM available : http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging-0.1.3-0.cvs20090127.fc10.remi.src.rpm What I've done : - - update the fedora specific patch (don't know if all is needed) - - update the fedora template.spec - - add the fedora template-channel.spec In both, I change the name of the .xml to %{name} (we could encounter conflict if we only use %{pear_name}). %{name} seems a robust solution. I cannot change the default for doc_files_relocation_script and doc_files_statement... Channel generated spec seems ok. There is an issue in the generated extension spec in the uninstall command. In template : @possible_channel@%{pear_name} Generated : components.ez.no%{pear_name} We need a / between channel and extension name. All seems ok with the PHP Guideline draft Update https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PHP Remi, Regards. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Remi - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkl/PjAACgkQYUppBSnxahijIQCg09DGHFdF5DCYsnxzRt5yjV5w 2O4AoL6uN+Kh22Leh1tvZKNf1kU+V2XO =S781 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From Fedora at FamilleCollet.com Tue Jan 27 17:09:08 2009 From: Fedora at FamilleCollet.com (Remi Collet) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:09:08 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-php-devel-list] RFC for PHP Guidelines Update In-Reply-To: <497F3E30.7090406@FamilleCollet.com> References: <469C53E2.1040702@FamilleCollet.com> <469E2099.8020402@timj.co.uk> <497F3E30.7090406@FamilleCollet.com> Message-ID: <497F3FB4.9090304@FamilleCollet.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Remi Collet a ?crit : > There is an issue in the generated extension spec in the uninstall command. > > In template : @possible_channel@%{pear_name} > Generated : components.ez.no%{pear_name} > > We need a / between channel and extension name. Same issue with the virtual Provides: Provides: php-pear(@possible_channel@%{pear_name}) = %{version} I can't add the / in the template because we don't want it for standard channel. Remi -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Remi - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkl/P7QACgkQYUppBSnxahg/1gCfW68wZen79QVZ19c55/bTaNII 3SwAn2e7JLY1jsVM7Ay9fb+fcY71l4TG =WU5s -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----