Dependencies on php vs php-common

[Tim Jackson]

Looking at a random selection of packages I have on a machine, there are
quite a few things that depend on the "php" package. For example on an FC6
system:

# rpm -q --whatrequires php
php-pear-1.4.9-4
php-pear-DB-1.7.6-7.fc6
php-pear-PHPUnit-1.3.2-1.fc6
squirrelmail-1.4.10a-1.fc6
php-adodb-4.94-1.fc6
mantis-1.0.8-1.fc6
php-devel-5.1.6-3.6.fc6

Should these in general not be dependent on php-common rather than php,
since "php" now basically contains just Apache HTTPD-related stuff?

(php-adodb should probably also only have an indirect dep via php(abi),
which is provided by php-common; I haven't checked if that's different in
fc7/devel)

Tim

[Joe Orton]

On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 03:21:27PM +0100, Tim Jackson wrote:
>  Looking at a random selection of packages I have on a machine, there
> are
>  quite a few things that depend on the "php" package. For example on an FC6
>  system:
>  
>  # rpm -q --whatrequires php
>  php-pear-1.4.9-4
>  php-pear-DB-1.7.6-7.fc6
>  php-pear-PHPUnit-1.3.2-1.fc6
>  squirrelmail-1.4.10a-1.fc6
>  php-adodb-4.94-1.fc6
>  mantis-1.0.8-1.fc6
>  php-devel-5.1.6-3.6.fc6
>  
>  Should these in general not be dependent on php-common rather than php,
>  since "php" now basically contains just Apache HTTPD-related stuff?
>  
>  (php-adodb should probably also only have an indirect dep via php(abi),
>  which is provided by php-common; I haven't checked if that's different in
>  fc7/devel) 
Agreed that PECL packages should only have dependencies on the virtual 
provides.  php-pear packages may have some dependency on PHP language 
versions; not sure about this one.

e.g. for something like squirrel it probably is correct since it's a 
webapp and is only set up to work out of the box with httpd + the PHP 
Apache SAPI.

joe

[Tim Jackson]

Joe Orton wrote:

>  Agreed that PECL packages should only have dependencies on the
> virtual 
>  provides.  php-pear packages may have some dependency on PHP language 
>  versions; not sure about this one. 
But even if they do have a dep on a language version, shouldn't that be
"php-common >= x" rather than "php >= x"?

Tim

[Joe Orton]

On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 04:08:27PM +0100, Tim Jackson wrote:
>  Joe Orton wrote:
>  
>  > Agreed that PECL packages should only have dependencies on the virtual 
>  > provides.  php-pear packages may have some dependency on PHP language 
>  > versions; not sure about this one.
>  
>  But even if they do have a dep on a language version, shouldn't that be
>  "php-common >= x" rather than "php >= x"? 
I guess a virtual provide would be better even here, but the "PHP 
language" is essentially unversioned so there's nothing really 
appropriate.

joe

[Remi Collet]

Tim Jackson a écrit :
>  Looking at a random selection of packages I have on a machine, there
> are
>  quite a few things that depend on the "php" package. For example on an FC6
>  system:
>  
>  # rpm -q --whatrequires php
>  php-pear-1.4.9-4 
It probably should only requires php-cli

>  php-pear-DB-1.7.6-7.fc6
>  php-pear-PHPUnit-1.3.2-1.fc6 
Requires PHP is not required as php-pear already required.

But this requires are only to check  minimal version as mentioned
upstream. Requires php-common should be enough even for EPEL 5 (I love
as many other use the same spec file for all branches)

EPEL 4 is another problem...

Remi