On 04/27/2011 03:00 AM, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 01:09:36PM -0400, Denniston, Todd A CIV NAVSURFWARCENDIV Crane wrote: >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: On Behalf Of Pasi Kärkkäinen >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 11:13 >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 04:34:53PM +0200, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote: >>>> Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> Does someone know if there's a cacti rpm available >>>>> that works (=installs and doesn't conflict) when "php53" rpm >>>>> is installed, instead of the older "php" rpm ? >>>>> >>>>> cacti rpms from rpmforge/dag have these requirements: >>>>> php >>>>> php-mysql >>>>> php-snmp >>>>> >> >> >>> Hey, >>> >>> Yep, I know I can create my own version of cacti, >>> but I was trying to avoid exactly that :) >>> >>> Thanks for the heads up about rpmforge mailing list, >>> I wasn't aware of it. >>> >>> -- Pasi >>> >> >> Not being a PHP developer, I was under the impression that many/most of these packages were interpreted scripts which probably would work fine under php53 vs. the php installed by default. >> I have been wondering from afar about this thread and the discussions over in the EPEL list, if someone could create a meta rpm that required php53 and provided php (and similar for php-mysql & php-snmp) and have the system continue to work. This is of course under the assumptions of: >> a. the packages are interpreted scripts >> b. the syntax has only added, and not changed or removed functionality since the stock php. >> >> Is this a not_bright idea in the php package world? >> > > That should work, yes. > "php53-php" perhaps.. I thought about this, but I think that any packages that provide files to /etc/php.d/ would then be able to be installed on php53 as is, and these would fail to work. So, while this work around would work perfectly for packages that are nothing more than "php applications/scripts (that is actual .php files)", it would not work for things that are compiled against the php libraries or that provide php or pecl modules, etc. Therefore, I think the best solution is for the php applications to get compiled against php53 (and for the php53 ones to be separate).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
