php-devel November 2007

php-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

3 participants
6 discussions

RFC for PHP Guidelines Update
by Remi Collet 27 Jan '09

27 Jan '09

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.

3 4

Zend's PDT
by Konstantin Ryabitsev 28 Feb '08

28 Feb '08

So... Does anyone feel brave enough to try packaging PDT? :) http://zend.com/pdt/ Cheers, -- Konstantin Ryabitsev Montréal, Québec

2 2

Re: [Fedora-php-devel-list] pecl list-upgrades not working?
by Remi Collet 30 Nov '07

30 Nov '07

Christopher Stone a écrit : >> 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.

2 1

Re: [Fedora-php-devel-list] pecl list-upgrades not working?
by Remi Collet 27 Nov '07

27 Nov '07

Christopher Stone a écrit : > 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

3 4

PHP packages with optional requires
by Christopher Stone 25 Nov '07

25 Nov '07

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-d17f63e05f4104fca50f… [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=266941#c7

1 0

pecl list-upgrades not working?
by Christopher Stone 25 Nov '07

25 Nov '07

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.

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

php-devel November 2007