please remove "ius" from release field

[carlwgeorge]

First off, thanks for choosing to base your phalcon RPM packages off of the IUS php70u packages. We love seeing users and developers benefit from our work.

I do have one small request. Please remove the "ius" string from your release field.

%global repo_vendor ius

Release: 1.%{repo_vendor}%{?dist}

Naming the packages with the same %{php_base} as ours is appropriate, but including "ius" in the release field is misleading. Today a user came to our IRC channel asking questions about php70u-phalcon. I would suggest setting repo_vendor to phalcon or removing it entirely.

[sergeyklay]

We need to generate RPMs like:

• php55u-phalcon-3.0.4-1.ius.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm (Remi/IUS)
• ...
• php55w-phalcon-3.0.4-1.w6.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm (Webtatic)
• ...

Also take a look at https://github.com/phalcongelist/packagecloud/blob/master/builder/patching.mk#L41

[carlwgeorge]

• Why do you say "Remi/IUS"? They are separate repos and should not be used together.
• I don't see any reference of Webtatic in the repository.
• You say you "need" to set the repo_vendor tag, but why? Your phalcon RPM packages don't come from IUS or Webtatic, so they shouldn't have those strings in the release.

[virgofx]

We should be able to drop the name on the vendor tag provided we can uniquely identify similar versions of Phalcon across different platform vendors. That means we'll need to get a matrix to see if the prefix name portion is unique across all vendors (e.g. php56u [IUS]). Otherwise, may need to adjust the vendor tag to be "phalcon-ius".

@carlwgeorge Webtatic isn't done yet here ... nor is Remi which is why it's not shown in source.

[sergeyklay]

As you know guys, we store packages in Packagecloud. So we have to use different file names to be able push package to cloud.

[sergeyklay]

Well, I agree with @virgofx we can use format like

• php55u-phalcon-3.0.4-1.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm
• php55w-phalcon-3.0.4-1.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm

[sergeyklay]

Probably we should create a more universal RPM-spec file and just use format like php55-phalcon-3.0.4-1.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm without repo vendor at all.

Cc: @virgofx

[virgofx]

The problem with the last method @sergeyklay is that Linux on the non-debian side for PHP is very specific which means the playground for PHP will either be one of the major PHP RPM providers so I don't think we can do a universal RPM spec ... it needs to be consistent with each of the main RPM providers (IUS, Webtatic, Remi, etc) This holds true for the dependencies (e.g. php56u-phalcon should require php56u and php56u-common)

[carlwgeorge]

@sergeyklay That approach would probably be ideal. You can accomplish that by taking advantage of virtual provides of the packages.

-Requires: %{php_base}(zend-abi) = %{zend_apiver}
-Requires: %{php_base}(api) = %{php_apiver}
+Requires: php(zend-abi) = %{php_zend_api}
+Requires: php(api) = %{php_core_api}

That should ensure compatibility with IUS, Webtatic, Remi, and any other providers who follow the pattern Fedora sets (which should be all of them).

[sergeyklay]

@carlwgeorge I start to refactor it (70acb45). Feel free to send PR to the dev branch.

[sergeyklay]

@virgofx Is there any changes/ideas related to this issue

[virgofx]

Not yet. I need to spend some time with it. I still have it on my list to get everything working with all Linux distros just been super busy at work :/

[carlwgeorge]

This is still an issue. Please remove the "ius" string from your release field.

[virgofx]

Since IUS doesn't build this package, we do ... What's the issue? This package is targeted specifically for use in combination with other php* IUS packages.

[carlwgeorge]

It confuses users, who mistake your packages as packages built by IUS, and then come to us to report issues or ask questions. I think it's great that you're building off IUS packages, I'm just asking for a simple change to the release field. The php??u- prefix is enough to indicate that it's intended to be used with IUS packages. How about setting repo_vendor to phalcon?