Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at

Bug 190101 (php-pear-Log)

Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Log
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Remi Collet <fedora>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Christopher Stone <chris.stone>
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: chris.stone, j
Target Milestone: ---Flags: wtogami: fedora-cvs+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-09-07 20:29:44 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Bug Depends On: 190252, 196793    
Bug Blocks: 163779, 189195, 196837, 196847    

Description Remi Collet 2006-04-27 16:08:55 UTC
Spec URL:
The Log framework provides an abstracted logging system.
It supports logging to console, file, syslog, SQL, Sqlite, mail, and mcal targets.
It also provides a subject - observer mechanism.

Comment 1 Remi Collet 2006-04-30 07:20:33 UTC
Waiting for Bug #190252

Comment 2 Remi Collet 2006-05-07 09:11:16 UTC
New spec and SRPM using %{_datadir}/pear/.pkgxml

Spec URL:

Comment 3 Jason Tibbitts 2006-05-11 02:37:58 UTC
I'd like to see some movement on these php-pear package reviews, but we have a
distinct lack of packaging guidelines for PHP modules.

Here are a few issues I noticed:
"PEAR" in the summary isn't really descriptive; maybe something like "Abstracted
logging facility for PHP" would make more sense.

I guess RPM won't extract the php-pear(*) provides as it will for Perl, which is
too bad.  I wonder if it could be taught.

Use "BuildArch:" instead of "BuildArchitectures:"; it lines up better.

rpmlint disagrees with the overlong line in the description.

Could you explain the comment in %prep?

Perhaps rpmlint could be taught to do the sanity check so it doesn't have to
live in the spec.

Could you explain the comment in %postun?

I think you might need Requires(post): php-pear and Requires(postun): php-pear
(or is that php-pear(PEAR)?).

Unfortunately I can't do a proper test because the updated php-pear isn't in FC5
yet and rawhide is broken at the moment.

Comment 4 Remi Collet 2006-05-11 16:30:00 UTC
There are movement, see Bug #190066.
The new php-pear-1.4.9 will allow us to progress.

Description used, is the one provide upstream on the package.xml. I must agree
it isn't very descriptive, but i don't know if it's a good idea to chance it.

For %prep. This comment is from pear template.spec
# XXX Source files location is missing here in pear cmd
It mean pear is only use to build "pearrc" (source will be provide in %install)

The Sanity check is use to check the job done by pear, because version 1.4.6
sometime left %[buildroot} relative path in .php file.
Using pear-1.4.9 and --packagingroot (insteaed of -R) solve this problem.

Of course i can remove it, but it could be useful for people who want to rebuild
the RPM for another distro.

%postun workaround ( ... || true) is for pear-1.4.6 which is unable to uninstall
somme package. No problem with pear-1.4.9.
This workaround is to avoid scriptlet (and uninstall) failure.
In this case the package is uninstalled, but not unregistred in pear extension
A solution could be to (Build)Requires pear > 1.4.7 ???

Yes php-pear(PEAR) is provide by php-pear.

php-pear-1.4.9 is in rawhide and in FC5-testing (see Bug #190252)

Comment 5 Jason Tibbitts 2006-05-11 16:40:44 UTC
> Description used, is the one provide upstream on the package.xml. I must agree
> it isn't very descriptive, but i don't know if it's a good idea to chance it.

Upstream can be broken in many ways.  We have to change the descriptions for
Perl modules as well.  Since the summary is the first thing the users will see,
it must be as descriptive as possible in the 60 or so characters available.

> For %prep. This comment is from pear template.spec

Do we have a pear template in fedora-rpmdevtools?  I don't see one.

[sanity check]
> Of course i can remove it, but it could be useful for people who want to rebuild
> the RPM for another distro.

We don't usually worry about that, but my point is that rpmlint is our sanity
checker and it's worth discussing whether it should be taught to check for
things like that.

Are you targeting FC4 with these packages?  If not, we should just require the
unbuggy php-pear version once it has been released.

I'm still waiting for either a buildable rawhide or the updated php-pear package
in FC5 to do a full review.  If anyone can answer the question of whether the
scriptlets need Requires(post) and Requires(postun) dependencies, please chip in.

Comment 6 Remi Collet 2006-05-11 17:24:26 UTC
> Do we have a pear template in fedora-rpmdevtools?  I don't see one.

/usr/share/pear/data/PEAR/template.spec provides by php-pear (old command : pear
/usr/share/pear/data/PEAR_Command_Packaging/template.spec provides by 
php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging (Bug #185423, new command pear make-rpm-spec,
soon in Extras).

I think this template is not really suitable for Extras and could really by
improve, but i'm not the packager for this.

Comment 7 Remi Collet 2006-05-15 18:30:55 UTC
Spec URL:
Mock build log :

- Require pear >= 1.4.9
- Requires(hint): (only comment actually) + description
- bundle the v3.01 PHP LICENSE file (as in php-pear)
- use --packagingroot (instead of -R)
- check from install to check (as in php-pear)

Comment 8 Remi Collet 2006-05-15 18:32:43 UTC

Comment 10 Christopher Stone 2006-06-27 05:03:47 UTC
Hey guys, I did not know this review request existed.  I created a php-pear-MDB2
review request and php-pear-Log review request.

Comment 11 Christopher Stone 2006-06-27 05:16:20 UTC
php-pecl-xdebug request:

php-pear-MDB2 reqeust:

NOTE that my php-pear-Log spec file uses these two packages.

Comment 12 Christopher Stone 2006-06-28 00:06:57 UTC
*** Bug 196823 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 13 Christopher Stone 2006-06-28 00:17:59 UTC
This package should require php-pear-MDB2 since I already went through the
trouble of making this package.  Please review this package so that it may be

Comment 14 Remi Collet 2006-07-12 17:22:52 UTC
Mock :

Changes : 
- update to 1.9.7
- use new macros from /etc/rpm/macros.pear
- add Requires php-pear(DB) and php-pear(MDB2)

MDB2/DB are defined as optional upstream and i'm using Log extension without
them for a while. But you're probably right that we must include "optional"
requires as mandatory while they are not handled by rpm/yum.

Comment 16 Christopher Stone 2006-09-04 00:17:39 UTC
Hi Remi, can you update the %setup and %install for this guy too?  Thanks.

Comment 17 Remi Collet 2006-09-04 16:10:06 UTC
Mock :

* Mon Sep 04 2006 Remi Collet <Fedora> 1.9.8-3
- new and simpler %%prep and %%install

Note : i've also update php-pear-Mail and php-pear-HTTP (already approved) on
the CVS.

Comment 18 Christopher Stone 2006-09-06 22:22:47 UTC
Hi Remi, since I need this built for FC-5, can you update the spec file to match
as closely as possible the latest template:*checkout*/fedora-rpmdevtools/spectemplate-php-pear.spec?root=fedora&rev=1.4&sortby=date

You may also want to include changes that hanvn't been officially committed to
cvs yet:

Comment 19 Remi Collet 2006-09-07 17:04:39 UTC
Mock :

Note :
- i didn't use %{ClassName} as it's very useful on a template but not on a
"generated" specfile.
- i didn't check for package.xml/package2.xml as auto-generation knows which one use
- i create docdir in the main build directory (cleaner, i think)

Comment 20 Christopher Stone 2006-09-07 18:24:41 UTC
Looking good, please change:

- Summary should not have "PEAR", a summary should be as short as possible while
still being descriptive enough to convey what it is.  Extra stuff like "A" or
"The" or "PEAR" should be removed from summaries.

- Set BuildRequires:  php-pear >= 1:1.4.9-1.2

Normally I would approve it now and request you make the changes in CVS, but the
BuildRequires is a blocker and must be fixed before I can approve it.

Comment 21 Remi Collet 2006-09-07 18:49:19 UTC

I've change then BR, but i really think it's not a BR
- 1.4.9 is required to have --packagingroot working
- 1.4.9-1.1 is required for memory limit, but 8M enough for this extension
- 1.4.9-1.2 is required for macros, which are embeded in the spec.

Comment 22 Christopher Stone 2006-09-07 19:54:21 UTC
Yeah, I just logged in to approve this anyway because you had already defined
the macros.  Looks good now anyway, approved.

Comment 23 Christopher Stone 2006-09-07 19:58:49 UTC
BTW, could you be so kind and sync and build this package for FC5?  I'm going to
need this for some of my packages which I want to build on FC5.  Thanks for all
your work on this and the other php packages.  :D

Comment 24 Remi Collet 2007-05-16 13:14:46 UTC
Package Change Request
Package Name: php-pear-Log
New Branches: EL-5