Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228433
Summary: perl-version: EPEL branch? Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: normal Component: perl-version AssignedTo: tcallawa@redhat.com ReportedBy: cweyl@alumni.drew.edu QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
A project I'm working on uses perl(version) on RHEL4. Any chance of an EPEL branch? :)
(note -- the specfile currently uses Build.PL; as perl-Module-Build isn't available in EPEL yet, it'll probably be necessary to switch over to the standard Makefile.PL provided.)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: perl-version: EPEL branch?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228433
------- Additional Comments From cweyl@alumni.drew.edu 2007-02-13 00:11 EST ------- Erm, scratch that last bit. The spec does indeed build via Makefile.PL.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: perl-version: EPEL branch?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228433
------- Additional Comments From cweyl@alumni.drew.edu 2007-02-13 00:51 EST ------- ...and to build on that, it would appear that since the spec is using Makefile.PL to build, the buildreq on perl(Module::Build) >= 0.2611 is spurious. perl-version builds nicely in mock with that br removed and without other alterations.
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 12:01:16AM -0500, bugzilla@redhat.com wrote:
(note -- the specfile currently uses Build.PL; as perl-Module-Build isn't available in EPEL yet, it'll probably be necessary to switch over to the standard Makefile.PL provided.)
Of course, the only reason Module::Build isn't available in EPEL yet is I haven't got around to it yet. :-)
Steve
On 2/13/07, Steven Pritchard steve@silug.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 12:01:16AM -0500, bugzilla@redhat.com wrote:
(note -- the specfile currently uses Build.PL; as perl-Module-Build isn't available in EPEL yet, it'll probably be necessary to switch over to the standard Makefile.PL provided.)
Of course, the only reason Module::Build isn't available in EPEL yet is I haven't got around to it yet. :-)
That's definitely a module I'd like to see in EPEL. Being w/o it makes things... difficult. :)
-Chris
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 01:09:21PM -0800, Chris Weyl wrote:
That's definitely a module I'd like to see in EPEL. Being w/o it makes things... difficult. :)
I've been a little out of the loop lately... I don't suppose you have a pointer to the procedure for making EPEL branches and such handy, do you?
Steve
On 2/14/07, Steven Pritchard steve@silug.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 01:09:21PM -0800, Chris Weyl wrote:
That's definitely a module I'd like to see in EPEL. Being w/o it makes things... difficult. :)
I've been a little out of the loop lately... I don't suppose you have a pointer to the procedure for making EPEL branches and such handy, do you?
Yah. Unless something else has changed in the last couple days, it's just a matter of:
1. adding a branch request to CVSSyncNeeded with EL-4 as the branch, and 2. sending a note to cvsadmin-members@fedoraproject.org with the lines to be added to owners.epel (essentially the same as in owners.list).
The branch will just show up as EL-4, and behave the way one expects it to, once the cvs admins have worked their magic.
At least, that's the way I've been doing it :)
-Chris
On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 16:23 -0800, Chris Weyl wrote:
On 2/14/07, Steven Pritchard steve@silug.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 01:09:21PM -0800, Chris Weyl wrote:
That's definitely a module I'd like to see in EPEL. Being w/o it makes things... difficult. :)
I've been a little out of the loop lately... I don't suppose you have a pointer to the procedure for making EPEL branches and such handy, do you?
Yah. Unless something else has changed in the last couple days, it's just a matter of:
- adding a branch request to CVSSyncNeeded with EL-4 as the branch, and
- sending a note to cvsadmin-members@fedoraproject.org with the lines
to be added to owners.epel (essentially the same as in owners.list).
The branch will just show up as EL-4, and behave the way one expects it to, once the cvs admins have worked their magic.
At least, that's the way I've been doing it :)
You can also request EL-5 branches if you'll be supporting the next release too...
Paul.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: perl-version: EPEL branch?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228433
------- Additional Comments From tcallawa@redhat.com 2007-04-04 19:04 EST ------- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: perl-version New Branches: EL-4 EL-5 Updated EPEL Owners: tcallawa@redhat.com Updated EPEL CC: fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: perl-version: EPEL branch?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228433
tcallawa@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: perl-version: EPEL branch?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228433
petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
------- Additional Comments From petersen@redhat.com 2007-04-06 01:59 EST ------- added
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: perl-version: EPEL branch?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228433
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora
tcallawa@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
------- Additional Comments From tcallawa@redhat.com 2007-07-03 13:54 EST ------- Built. Sorry it took so long. :/
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=228433
Marcela Mašláňová mmaslano@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #6 from Marcela Mašláňová mmaslano@redhat.com 2011-01-31 03:27:30 EST --- We resurrected this package for dual-life modules. Could it be brought to life again? It's already unblocked, but now we are missing permissions.
Spot, if you like, add yourself among maintainers.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: perl-version New Branches: f14 EL-6 Owners: mmaslano ppisar psabata InitialCC: perl-sig
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=228433
Paul Howarth paul@city-fan.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |paul@city-fan.org
--- Comment #7 from Paul Howarth paul@city-fan.org 2011-01-31 05:00:09 EST --- I don't think we can add an EL-6 branch as that would update a package from RHEL-6.
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=228433
--- Comment #8 from Marcela Mašláňová mmaslano@redhat.com 2011-01-31 05:45:27 EST --- You are right.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: perl-version New Branches: f14 Owners: mmaslano ppisar psabata InitialCC: perl-sig
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=228433
--- Comment #9 from Bill Nottingham notting@redhat.com 2011-02-02 17:28:33 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org