Hi, really, you have right. I don't think that there is any reason to have the dependence like this (php >= 5.2.0). The dependence only on php > 5 should be enough.
The another idea could be to use sources provided by Paul or Travers. This sources maybe looks more sophisticated and mature. Both of then (either http://centos.nm.ru/centos/zabbix-1.8-4.el5.src.rpm or http://www.gpmidi.net/files/paul_m/rpm/zabbix/zabbix-1.8-1.3.tar) looks as a good candidate to the initial source for the zabbix in RPMforge. Tomas Travers Carter wrote: > On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 07:59:03 Fabian Arrotin wrote: > >> Tomas Podermanski wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> is it possible to add zabbix into rpmforge repository ? The specfile >>> is available on http://repo.andrewfarley.com/centos/specs/zabbix.spec . >>> >>> Thanks >>> Tomas >>> >> I've just had a quick look at the provided spec, but that leads to a >> question : can we add a package that depends on a package not present in >> the distro nor in RPMforge ? >> It seems that the current Zabbix package would need php >= 5.2.0 , which >> isn't available in [base] nor in RPMforge nor on RHN for RHEL >> systems. That would be another 'repoclosure' to be added to the (already >> too long) list .. :-/ >> That's probably the reason why Epel has still 1.4.6 while Rawhide has >> 1.8.1 already .... >> Ideas ? Thoughts ? >> >> > > Is PHP >= 5.2.0 really required for zabbix 1.8? > > I've been running the 1.8 frontend on the default CentOS 5 PHP 5.1.6 packages > with no problems for close to a month now, and the the Zabbix manual suggests > that PHP 5.1 is fine provided it's configured correctly: > > http://www.zabbix.com/documentation/1.8/complete#version_compatibility > > I've been using a build based on the RPMs available here: > http://centos.nm.ru/centos/ > > _______________________________________________ suggest mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rpmforge.net/mailman/listinfo/suggest
