Re: [Fedora-php-devel-list] pecl list-upgrades not working?

[Remi Collet]

Christopher Stone a écrit :
> Ah I see, I wonder why minor point releases are not updated on
> supported Fedora distributions.  You think there could be a
> possibility we could co-maintain php-pear with Joe and do point
> releases on supported stable fedora repositories?

I'm already co-maintainer on php-pear.

pear-1.6.x use a totally new spec (1.5.x use an upstream .phar, 1.6.x
use the upstream .tar.gz).

I agree we should push 1.6.x to F7 (it's a security update because pear
< 1.5.4 as security issues) but we must ask Joe about this.

Regards

pecl list-upgrades not working?

[Remi Collet]

Remi Collet a écrit :
> I agree we should push 1.6.x to F7 (it's a security update because pear
> < 1.5.4 as security issues) but we must ask Joe about this.

Notes :
- 1.5.0 to 1.6.2 is not a minor update
- it will need a rebuild of all pecl extension
- it will add a Requires on the new pear wersion

Remi.

P.S. i can't remenber if an upgrade to 1.5.4 will be possible. pear
1.6.x need some patches (included upstream in 1.6.2) to have working
register of pecl extension :
    http://pear.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=11420
    http://pear.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=11517
    http://pear.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=11657
    http://pear.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=12009

pecl list-upgrades not working?

[Joe Orton]

On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 06:43:39AM +0100, Remi Collet wrote:
> Remi Collet a écrit :
> > I agree we should push 1.6.x to F7 (it's a security update because pear
> > < 1.5.4 as security issues) but we must ask Joe about this.

There is no need to treat CVE-2007-2519 (the bug fixed in 1.5.4) as 
security-sensitive; see 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=241218
> Notes :
> 1.5.0 to 1.6.2 is not a minor update
> it will need a rebuild of all pecl extension

I'm not sure that's really a good idea then.  Doing a 1.5.4 update, if 
possible, sounds safer.

joe

pecl list-upgrades not working?

[Christopher Stone]

On Nov 26, 2007 1:18 AM, Joe Orton  wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 06:43:39AM +0100, Remi Collet wrote:
> > Remi Collet a écrit :
> > > I agree we should push 1.6.x to F7 (it's a security update because pear
> > > < 1.5.4 as security issues) but we must ask Joe about this.
>
> There is no need to treat CVE-2007-2519 (the bug fixed in 1.5.4) as
> security-sensitive; see
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=241218
> > Notes :
> > 1.5.0 to 1.6.2 is not a minor update
> > it will need a rebuild of all pecl extension
>
> I'm not sure that's really a good idea then.  Doing a 1.5.4 update, if
> possible, sounds safer.

+1 on a 1.5.4 update for F-7

pecl list-upgrades not working?

[Remi Collet]

Joe Orton a écrit :
> > 1.5.0 to 1.6.2 is not a minor update
> > it will need a rebuild of all pecl extension
>
> I'm not sure that's really a good idea then.  Doing a 1.5.4 update, if 
> possible, sounds safer.

I've probaly been not enough precise

If we update pear to introduce a new version and macro which are
required to register the pecl extension, we need a mass-rebuild,
whatever is the new version (1.5.x or 1.6.x) (and new Requires).

Remi