On 7/6/06, Toshio Kuratomi <toshio(a)tiki-lounge.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 13:42 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
The message that this all stems from is here:
the quotation by you is that you are requiring php >= 4.2.0 in some
packages; php >= 4.3.0 in others. php 4.3.3 was already present in
Fedora Core 1 so the package version is deeply irrelevant for Fedora.
The rule is whether the lowest version requirement is satisfied by
packages on Fedora's target distributions. It may be open to
interpretation whether "target distribution release" means non-EOL
distributions (in which case FC4+ currently) or distributions the
packager is actively building for but in either case, php >= 4.2.0 being
irrelevant even for FC1 means it is too old.
I have no problem with just Requiring php instead of php 4.2 because
4.2 is ancient. Note that even my default spec file:
Does not have any version number listed for php. But I do not see any
harm in actually providing this information, it would seem especially
important for packages that require php 5 or even php 6 when it comes
But a really important point I want to make and clarify:
It is not the php version that really concerns me. It is the version
requirements of other pear packages which is my main concern.
For example, take a look at my spec file for Payment_Process:
This package requires 5 other pear packages with specific version
requirements that have been listed by the package.
Now my questions are:
1) Should I not list the version numbers for these packages just
because these packages never existed in Fedora?
2) Is there any harm in listing the version number requirements?
3) Is there any benefit to not having the version number requirements?
Thanks for keeping an open mind.