On 7/4/06, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> "CS" == Christopher Stone <chris.stone@xxxxxxxxx> writes: CS> Note pear and pecl modules both need to get path infomation in the CS> same way: Doesn't look the same to me; one calls "pear", the other calls "pecl". Are you saying that those two directories will always be identical even though two different programs are called to figure that out?
I meant they get the information in the same way, yes. Basically the only difference is one uses the pear command and one uses the pecl command.
[Smarty] CS> If there is something wrong with installing it in CS> %_datadir, where should it go instead? Well, thankfully every Perl and Python class library doesn't go in %_datadir; we'd have thousands and thousands of directories there. Why not some PHP-specific place?
/usr/share/php/Smarty is definately smarter ;-)
CS> How is this different than: Requires(post): php-pear We don't use Requires(post): glibc when we want to call /sbin/ldconfig.
I have updated the template spec file here: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/spectemplate-pear.spec I am assuming that the php-pear package drops in the %{__pear} and %{__pecl} macros as suggested by Nicolas.
[ || : bits] CS> Why are these no longer wanted? First I am told to put them in, and CS> now I am told not to. I was asked to remove them and told they were no longer necessary for one of my packages, but now I can't find it where that was. (I think it was the denyhosts review, but that ticket seems to be missing from bugzilla completely for whatever reason.) Honestly I don't fully understand the issue so don't take what I wrote as the way things have to be.
I have left these in for now, rather be safe than sorry. -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
