----- Mail original -----
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 07:44:19PM +0200, Remi Collet wrote:
> > So, this is exactly what we need to fix / avoid.
> >
> > This should be
> >
> > Requires: php-common >= 5.2.0-9
> >
> > (php-common which provides php.ini which define the include path of
> > /usr/share/php where library must be installed)
> >
> > I think it only make sense to requires httpd for a webapp when it
> > provide an specific httpd configuration file.
>
> I agree with the general sentiment here, but I'm not sure about
> encouraging a dependency on php-common specifically. The existence
> of
> that package should be considered an implementation detail in how we
> happen to package php (currently), I'd have thought.
Yes, I totally agree
>
> For a PHP library (as in, collection of PHP code), this is more
> tricky.
> We want to express a dependency on a particular language version.
> I'd
> say php-api would be correct, but that is effectively useless since
> the
> language evolves across minor releases, but the API version does not
> have that granualarity.
>
> Maybe a new dependency would be better, have php (and php53, etc) do:
>
> Provides: php-language = %{version}
Seems a good idea
(I will have prefer "php-version" or "php(version)" which is more clearly a virtual provides).
But would it be possible to have this in RHEL-5/php, RHEL-5/php53 and RHEL-6/php quite quickly ?
For memory, lot of package already use "php-common" (to have a version check). Issue was came with php53 in RHEL-5.
Regards,
Remi.
>
> or something similar?
>
> Regards, Joe
> --
> packaging mailing list
> packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
