Christopher Stone a écrit :
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).
Would the pecl packages be *required* to be rebuilt? Would their behavior be the same as they are now if they are not rebuilt? If we rebuild the pecl packages it only makes it so they show up correctly with the pecl command, correct?
You're right.
Package not rebuild will still work without being registered. Note that some pecl extension still doesn't register on F8.
Remi.
On Nov 29, 2007 10:51 PM, Remi Collet Fedora@famillecollet.com wrote:
Christopher Stone a écrit :
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).
Would the pecl packages be *required* to be rebuilt? Would their behavior be the same as they are now if they are not rebuilt? If we rebuild the pecl packages it only makes it so they show up correctly with the pecl command, correct?
You're right.
Package not rebuild will still work without being registered. Note that some pecl extension still doesn't register on F8.
If there is no reason to not upgrade to 1.5.4 on F-7 I would say go ahead and do it. It is not going to make much difference to me now since I plan on upgrading to F-8 soon.
I would like to have a policy where minor point releases for pear are kept updated on supported Fedora releases. In theory minor point releases should not break anything, and I think it would be good to have the latest stable versions available in Fedora.
Remi, do you know which pecl packages are not showing up in F8? Are any of them mine?
php-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Christopher Stone -
Remi Collet