Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598553
Chris Weyl cweyl@alumni.drew.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cweyl@alumni.drew.edu
--- Comment #4 from Chris Weyl cweyl@alumni.drew.edu 2010-06-02 01:59:47 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2)
You can view on it from all three points. However I have never submit a review request nor written a spec file from scratch. I will do that when I have sparse time. I'm not the only one who maintains perl packages in Fedora. So maybe somebody could be faster then me. Actually I use the Bugzilla for the right thing: to track distribution issues, don't I?
Yep -- and here's the workflow commonly used :)
When we know there's an issue/upgrade needing attention, the tracking bug should be filed against the component itself. Any package reviews that need to be done should be filed separately, and set to block the tracking bug.
Soo, in this case, this bug (tracking) should be filed against perl-Padre; the review bug for perl-PPIx-Regexp should be set to block this bug once it has been created (no matter who creates it).
This helps provide a distinction between the two issues here: one, that perl-Padre cannot be updated until perl-PPIx-Regexp is in Fedora; and two, the actual review process itself.