See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PHP
This have been discussed/explained on packaging ML http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2012-June/008504.html
FPC discussed this today and agrees with the general idea.
We'd like to have the following clarifications made to the draft:
be used instead of "Requires: php"?
Issue with EPEL-5 and php53 stack:
php53-common provides the same "virtual" as php-common (php-date, php-exif, php-session, ...) except php-common itself.
This seems to be fix in the others sub-package (p.e. php53-xml provides php-dom, php-domxml, phpwddx, php-xsl and php-xml)
Bug filed againt php53 in RHEL-5 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831753
I will be AFK for about 1 week. So I will take care of updating the proposal after. I'm also waiting feedback for possible change in RHEL php packages.
While php-common is a commonly used workaround, PHP in fedora >= 16 now provides '''php(language)''' which is designed for checking minimal PHP version. There is a bug recorded to add this in RHEL packages
Draft has been updated with current solution (php-common) and future one : php(language)
draft approved (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0)
Announce text:
The PHP Packaging guidelines have been updated to include guidance about when it is appropriate to have an explicit Requires on httpd & mod_php, how to handle explicit Requires on PHP extensions, and how to handle a Requires for a minimum PHP version.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#Apache_requirement https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#Extensions_Requires https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#Requiring_a_Minimum_PHP_version
Metadata Update from @remi: - Issue assigned to spot
Login to comment on this ticket.