hi guys,
We've had a php-5.2 in c5-testing which was based on the rhwas sources from upstream. Quite a few people have that package in production at various places however, this looks mostly unsupported upstream now.
Would someone like to adopt the 5.2 packages, bring them upto 5.2.17 and maintain it going forward for c5 ?
Regards,
- KB
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
hi guys,
We've had a php-5.2 in c5-testing which was based on the rhwas sources from upstream. Quite a few people have that package in production at various places however, this looks mostly unsupported upstream now.
Would someone like to adopt the 5.2 packages, bring them upto 5.2.17 and maintain it going forward for c5 ?
I dunno how to establish the trust Johnny mentioned, but you can count on me as a last resort if you have no other volunteers.
kind regards/ldv/vaden@texoma.net
On 02/17/2011 06:46 AM, Larry Vaden wrote:
Would someone like to adopt the 5.2 packages, bring them upto 5.2.17 and maintain it going forward for c5 ?
I dunno how to establish the trust Johnny mentioned, but you can count on me as a last resort if you have no other volunteers.
how about submitting a patch to the existing spec file bringing it upto 5.2.17; that would be a good place to start from
- KB
Le 17/02/11 07:46, Karanbir Singh a écrit :
On 02/17/2011 06:46 AM, Larry Vaden wrote:
Would someone like to adopt the 5.2 packages, bring them upto 5.2.17 and maintain it going forward for c5 ?
I dunno how to establish the trust Johnny mentioned, but you can count on me as a last resort if you have no other volunteers.
how about submitting a patch to the existing spec file bringing it upto 5.2.17; that would be a good place to start from
- KB
Hi Karanbir,
Belowthe patch,php-extras would need to be recompiled as well.
JML
root# diff -uri php-5.2.17.spec php-5.2.10.spec --- php-5.2.17.spec 2011-02-17 10:53:30.000000000 +0100 +++ php-5.2.10.spec 2009-08-10 11:12:31.000000000 +0200 @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
Summary: The PHP HTML-embedded scripting language Name: php -Version: 5.2.17 +Version: 5.2.10 Release: 1%{?dist} License: PHP Group: Development/Languages @@ -632,9 +632,6 @@ %files pdo -f files.pdo
%changelog -* Thu Feb 17 2011 Jean-Marc Liger jmliger@siris.sorbonne.fr 5.2.17-1%{?dist} -- update to 5.2.17 - * Mon Aug 10 2009 Joe Orton jorton@redhat.com 5.2.10-1.el5s2 - update to 5.2.10
# mock -r epel-5-i386 --define='dist .el5' --resultdir=entrouvert-i386 php-5.2.17-1.src.rpm INFO: mock.py version 1.0.14 starting... State Changed: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled WARNING: selinux: 'yum' does not support '--setopt' option State Changed: start INFO: Start(php-5.2.17-1.src.rpm) Config(epel-5-i386) State Changed: lock buildroot State Changed: clean State Changed: init State Changed: lock buildroot Mock Version: 1.0.14 INFO: Mock Version: 1.0.14 INFO: enabled root cache INFO: root cache aged out! cache will be rebuilt INFO: enabled yum cache State Changed: cleaning yum metadata INFO: enabled ccache State Changed: running yum State Changed: creating cache State Changed: setup State Changed: build INFO: Done(php-5.2.17-1.src.rpm) Config(epel-5-i386) 34 minutes 38 seconds INFO: Results and/or logs in: centos-i386 INFO: Cleaning up build root ('clean_on_success=True') State Changed: lock buildroot State Changed: clean INFO: chroot (/var/lib/mock/epel-5-i386) unlocked and deleted
On 02/17/2011 12:12 PM, Jean-Marc Liger wrote:
Belowthe patch,php-extras would need to be recompiled as well.
Good point, does that work as expected for .17 ?
-Version: 5.2.17 +Version: 5.2.10
I'll roll that in for now, but we are going to need a better workfow system moving forward. I'd vote for a shared git setup. Since were mostly just using git for new stuff within centos.
- KB
On 17.2.2011 07:29, Karanbir Singh wrote:
Would someone like to adopt the 5.2 packages, bring them upto 5.2.17 and maintain it going forward for c5 ?
Hi,
it's not needed anymore I think.
In IUS Community repo (http://iuscommunity.org/) are both PHP 5.2 and PHP 5.3 with plenty of modules and additional packages.
It's maintained very well IMHO and both versions works rock solid (if it's possible at all for PHP ;-) )
Martin Kocourek
Hello,
The "main problem" with IUS repo for php5.2: too many deps. If you need the same deps as RHWAS, simply download the srpm from RH: ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/5Server/en/RHWAS/SRPMS/php-5.2.10-1.el5s2.src.rpm replace the archive php-5.2.10.tar.gz when extracting srpm by the php-5.2.17 from php.net update the version number in the spec file rebuild
And All done; no compilation problem, this version is working very well (6 production servers actually running glpi, groupoffice, zarafa, no problem at all):
http://www.interlug.net/sandbox/linux/centos5/SRPMS/php-5.2.17-1.src.rpm binaries for i386: http://www.interlug.net/sandbox/linux/centos5/i386/
Regards,
js.
Le 17/02/11 10:49, Martin Kocourek a écrit :
On 17.2.2011 07:29, Karanbir Singh wrote:
Would someone like to adopt the 5.2 packages, bring them upto 5.2.17 and maintain it going forward for c5 ?
Hi,
it's not needed anymore I think.
In IUS Community repo (http://iuscommunity.org/) are both PHP 5.2 and PHP 5.3 with plenty of modules and additional packages.
It's maintained very well IMHO and both versions works rock solid (if it's possible at all for PHP ;-) )
Martin Kocourek
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 04:01:17PM +0400, js wrote:
Hello,
The "main problem" with IUS repo for php5.2: too many deps.
Please don't top-post.
What "problem" are you seeing with IUS exactly? I've got their 5.2 running on a couple different server farms without any issues at all; same for their 5.3 for what it's worth.
John
Le 19/02/11 16:22, John R. Dennison a écrit :
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 04:01:17PM +0400, js wrote:
Hello,
The "main problem" with IUS repo for php5.2: too many deps.
Please don't top-post.
What "problem" are you seeing with IUS exactly? I've got their 5.2 running on a couple different server farms without any issues at all; same for their 5.3 for what it's worth.
John
Hello too,
When you try to rebuild srpm using IUS srpm, you need to have a lot of extra dependencies (oracle libs, freetds ..) that's why i rebuild from RHWAS srpms.
If the problem is to maintain php from RHWAS, the IUS srpm is maybe not a good solution. If you only want binaries, ok IUS is perfect :)
Regards,
js
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 04:33:14PM +0400, js wrote:
If you only want binaries, ok IUS is perfect :)
I was indeed thinking only of the binary packages from IUS; thanks for the clarification :)
John
On 02/17/2011 06:49 AM, Martin Kocourek wrote:
In IUS Community repo (http://iuscommunity.org/) are both PHP 5.2 and PHP 5.3 with plenty of modules and additional packages.
third party packaging setups are free to solve their own problems, that does not mean we should leave people hanging if they decided to use a package set that we put out.
- KB
Am 17.02.2011 um 07:29 schrieb Karanbir Singh:
hi guys,
We've had a php-5.2 in c5-testing which was based on the rhwas sources from upstream. Quite a few people have that package in production at various places however, this looks mostly unsupported upstream now.
If php53 is in the pipeline, the question raise up; whether there is a demand for it.
Would someone like to adopt the 5.2 packages, bring them upto 5.2.17 and maintain it going forward for c5 ?
diff php*.spec 8,9c8,9 < Version: 5.2.17 ---
Version: 5.2.10
Works for me.
Regards PM
On 02/17/2011 12:18 PM, Paulo Martinez wrote:
We've had a php-5.2 in c5-testing which was based on the rhwas sources
If php53 is in the pipeline, the question raise up; whether there is a demand for it.
that was my question as well, but it turns out that 5.2 isnt really replaceable by 5.3 without change in code.
- KB
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 01:18:47PM +0100, Paulo Martinez wrote:
If php53 is in the pipeline, the question raise up; whether there is a demand for it.
Yes, there will be demand for a 5.2 kit, whether provided by CentOS or a 3rd-party player. 5.3 is not fully backwards compatible with 5.2 so it's not a seamless drop-in replacement without having to audit and change codebases.
John
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
Would someone like to adopt the 5.2 packages, bring them upto 5.2.17 and maintain it going forward for c5 ?
That was done 07-Jan-2011 05:13 by Denis Frolov et al on CentALT IFF they can be vetted per the trust issues Johnny mentioned.
Le 17/02/2011 07:29, Karanbir Singh a écrit :
hi guys,
We've had a php-5.2 in c5-testing which was based on the rhwas sources from upstream. Quite a few people have that package in production at various places however, this looks mostly unsupported upstream now.
Would someone like to adopt the 5.2 packages, bring them upto 5.2.17 and maintain it going forward for c5 ?
Sorry but I think this will be a terrible mistake (even if I'm going to hurt some people)
AFAIK, CentOS is a RHEL clone.
So, cloning package for RHEL is ok Cloning package from RHWAS is also ok (in a sub-repository, of course)
RHWAS provides php-5.2.10-1.el5s2 as should CentOS
I think that providing packages which are not RH's upstream introduce a terrible confusion for final users.
I think this is definitively something for third party repositories.
So, to resume, is CentOS a clone or a fork of RHEL ?
Best regards, Remi
On 2/17/2011 11:45 AM, Remi Collet wrote:
We've had a php-5.2 in c5-testing which was based on the rhwas sources from upstream. Quite a few people have that package in production at various places however, this looks mostly unsupported upstream now.
Would someone like to adopt the 5.2 packages, bring them upto 5.2.17 and maintain it going forward for c5 ?
Sorry but I think this will be a terrible mistake (even if I'm going to hurt some people)
AFAIK, CentOS is a RHEL clone.
So, cloning package for RHEL is ok Cloning package from RHWAS is also ok (in a sub-repository, of course)
RHWAS provides php-5.2.10-1.el5s2 as should CentOS
I think that providing packages which are not RH's upstream introduce a terrible confusion for final users.
I think this is definitively something for third party repositories.
So, to resume, is CentOS a clone or a fork of RHEL ?
http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories (note the extras/plus repos)
If you enable the non-default CentOSPlus repo, it might be reasonable to consider it a fork. But, anything that can co-exist with a stock RHEL distro probably belongs in EPEL or one of the other repos used by RHEL and all clones.
On 02/17/2011 05:45 PM, Remi Collet wrote:
RHWAS provides php-5.2.10-1.el5s2 as should CentOS
isnt rhwas now abandoned ?
So, to resume, is CentOS a clone or a fork of RHEL ?
The centos project != centos the distro, which of the two are you talking about here ? ( Les already kinda cleared the air a bit but.. )
- KB
On 02/18/2011 05:27 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 02/17/2011 05:45 PM, Remi Collet wrote:
RHWAS provides php-5.2.10-1.el5s2 as should CentOS
isnt rhwas now abandoned ?
So, to resume, is CentOS a clone or a fork of RHEL ?
The centos project != centos the distro, which of the two are you talking about here ? ( Les already kinda cleared the air a bit but.. )
I do believe in 5.6 there will now be a php53 along with the php.
I don't know what that means for rhwas.
On 02/17/2011 11:45 AM, Remi Collet wrote:
Le 17/02/2011 07:29, Karanbir Singh a écrit :
hi guys,
We've had a php-5.2 in c5-testing which was based on the rhwas sources from upstream. Quite a few people have that package in production at various places however, this looks mostly unsupported upstream now.
Would someone like to adopt the 5.2 packages, bring them upto 5.2.17 and maintain it going forward for c5 ?
Sorry but I think this will be a terrible mistake (even if I'm going to hurt some people)
AFAIK, CentOS is a RHEL clone.
So, cloning package for RHEL is ok Cloning package from RHWAS is also ok (in a sub-repository, of course)
RHWAS provides php-5.2.10-1.el5s2 as should CentOS
I think that providing packages which are not RH's upstream introduce a terrible confusion for final users.
I think this is definitively something for third party repositories.
So, to resume, is CentOS a clone or a fork of RHEL ?
CentOSPlus is a fork of RHEL (or at least some added packages) ... the CentOS Base is a clone of it.
-
Jean-Marc Liger -
John R. Dennison -
Johnny Hughes -
js -
Karanbir Singh -
Larry Vaden -
Les Mikesell -
Martin Kocourek -
Paulo Martinez -
Remi Collet