Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: php-pear Alias: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 ------- Additional Comments From jorton@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-07 11:44 EST ------- The PLD PEAR stuff is half hidden in obfuscated RPM macros shipped in the rpm package (!?), it took me a while to try and read through what they actually do again. It is a lot of code to achieve what we do in one PHP invocation running the .phar. They have to fake up a PEAR environment and configuration, unpack the tgz, do a fake --nodeps install, then copy that environment out to the buildroot. I can't see how they get a lot of stuff right: - they create .filemap via "touch" so presumably the files list in the PEAR database omits the PEAR package itself - they don't relocate any of the installed PEAR database files - the pear.conf they install is AFAICT the fake one; we use the fully-populated one created by PEAR itself The whole thing looks overcomplicated and fragile. Bootstrapping from the .phar is simple and low-maintenance; it's the only method for bootstrapping PEAR actually supported by upstream to boot (whether it comes via go-pear.org or with the PHP tarball). The only thing which sucks about using the .phar is upstream's lack of release archive, which really makes no difference to the packaging. So my choice definitely remains with using the .phar. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review