On 7/4/06, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> wrote:
>>>>> "CS" == Christopher Stone
<chris.stone(a)gmail.com> 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.