Am Dienstag, den 08.09.2009, 11:50 -0400 schrieb Andrew Overholt:
* Christoph Höger <choeger(a)cs.tu-berlin.de> [2009-09-08
11:50]:
> Am Dienstag, den 08.09.2009, 08:26 -0400 schrieb Andrew Overholt:
> > Hi,
> >
> > * Christoph Höger <choeger(a)cs.tu-berlin.de> [2009-09-07 07:41]:
> > >
> > > It looks to me as if rebuilding bsf with version 2.4.0 and including a
> > > build requires on jython would be enough.
> >
> > Sounds fine to me. Does anything strictly need bsf < 2.4.0? I realize
> > nothing will have a strict Requires <= but we should at least try to
> > build the direct packages that need bsf to verify that they still build
> > with 2.4.0.
>
> So I will proceed by building bsf 2.4.0 for f11, ok?
I recommend doing a build for rawhide first.
Of course. I wasn't sure that this is still possible. I always miss
those frozen announcements.
> I just don't know if I should just rebuild any packages that
depend on
> bsf ... Is there a way to inform the maintainers?
You can use repoquery to see what Requires bsf and then use pkgdb or
${pkgname}-owner(a)fedoraproject.org to email them.
Good idea, those are only four packages. Somehow I cannot find
ant-apache-bsf in the packagedb.
It seems like pcheung is the only maintainer that needs to be notified.
[choeger@choeger5 offlineimap]$ repoquery --whatrequires bsf
ant-apache-bsf-0:1.7.1-9.2.fc11.x86_64
jruby-0:1.1.6-3.fc11.x86_64
xdoclet-0:1.2.3-10.4.fc11.x86_64
bsh-0:1.3.0-14.fc11.x86_64