Ticket #66 (closed defect: fixed)

Opened 3 years ago

Last modified 3 years ago

Minor fix in EPEL Guidelines

Reported by: remi Owned by:
Priority: minor Milestone:
Component: Guideline Draft Version:
Keywords: Cc: robert
Blocked By: Blocking:

Description

In https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:EPEL#PHP_ABI_Check_Handling

%if 0%{?php_zend_api}

Must be replace by

%if 0%{?php_zend_api:1}

Because, with latest PHP version this value is not an integer (but an arch specific string)

Change History

comment:1 Changed 3 years ago by robert

I'm sorry, but I think this is broken. From my point of view, the value in /etc/rpm/macros.php is not architecture specific. Because things get architecture specific during build, but not as long as it's source only. Instead developers should use %{php_zend_api}%{?_isa} in their *.spec files - the same, as you do at package requirements as well. Why should there be any exception for Provides of API/ABI?

comment:2 Changed 3 years ago by robert

  • Cc robert added

comment:3 Changed 3 years ago by robert

Especially...what happens if php-devel.x86_64 and php-devel.i686 is installed with /etc/rpm/macros.php?

comment:4 Changed 3 years ago by rdieter

I'd say the fix as proposed is a no-brainer, "just do it".

Going beyond that and arguing about the arch'ness of %{php_zend_api} goes beyond the scope of this otherwise simple EasyFix? to the php guidelines. (A good conversation to be had, surely, but here... no)

comment:5 follow-up: ↓ 7 Changed 3 years ago by tibbs

I'm wondering why this EPEL guideline page isn't somewhere where the EPEL folks can edit it without going through the packaging committee.

comment:6 Changed 3 years ago by robert

What happens to /etc/rpm/macros.php, if I install php-devel.i686 and php-devel.x86_64? The i686 one ships "%php_zend_api 220091234(i686)" while the x86_64 one ships "%php_zend_api 220091234(x86_64)".

Anyway, I don't treat this as something to fix in the EPEL guidelines but to be fixed in the PHP package in Rawhide itself. That's why I opened https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=680811 initially and proposed there a fix.

comment:7 in reply to: ↑ 5 Changed 3 years ago by toshio

Replying to tibbs:

I'm wondering why this EPEL guideline page isn't somewhere where the EPEL folks can edit it without going through the packaging committee.

Indeed, let's move the information here for now: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#Distribution_specific_guidelines

+1 to moving this to an EPEL controlled space.

I also asked nirik (as a member of the EPEL SIG) and he thought moving it was a good idea.

comment:8 Changed 3 years ago by spot

  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from new to closed

Page moved to EPEL:Packaging.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.