Description: ------------ pear makerpm package.tar.gz does nto create any Require statments in the spec file and so the rpms will install but then your scripts will fail with messages like "Failed opening required 'XML/Util.php'" even though the relevent package.xml files contain blocks like <deps> <dep type="pkg" rel="ge" version="0.4.2" optional="no">XML_Util</dep> <dep type="pkg" rel="ge" version="1.1.0" optional="no">XML_Parser</dep> <dep type="pkg" rel="has" optional="no">PEAR</dep> </deps>

There's no reliable way to handle this - how do you know what the names of the other .rpms will be? If you have any bright ideas, a patch would be most helpful.

We know exactly what the other rpms are called as all rpms build of pear modules are called PEAR::$module_name so the spec file simply need to have "Requires: PEAR::$module_name >= $version"

OK. I am not at all familiar with the internals of rpm. Could you provide an example of what a requires statement looks like and if it exists, an optional dependency? Also, where do these go in the spec? Gre

All that is required is a spec file with the following lines within the header Requires: PEAR::$dependant_module_name >= $version Requires: PEAR::$some_otherdependant_module_name >= $version Given this script builds all the pear rpms we know the exact name of what the rpm on which this one is dependant is called. e.g XML::Parser becomes PEAR::XML_Parser

This bug has been fixed in CVS. In case this was a documentation problem, the fix will show up at the end of next Sunday (CET) on pear.php.net. In case this was a pear.php.net website problem, the change will show up on the website in short time. Thank you for the report, and for helping us make PEAR better. this also highlighted problems with installroot in PEAR 1.4 Note that this fix will not be backported to 1.3.x

A patch which applies against older PEAR versions is at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=173814 See also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=173806 and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=173804 for some discussion of generating RPM deps for declared dependency types other than "package" (e.g. "ext").