[Bug 228433] New: perl-version: EPEL branch?

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: [e-mail]
        ReportedBy: [e-mail]
         QAContact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail]

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.)

[Bug 228433] perl-version: EPEL branch?

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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 [e-mail]  2007-02-13 00:11 EST -------
Erm, scratch that last bit.  The spec does indeed build via Makefile.PL.

[Bug 228433] perl-version: EPEL branch?

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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 [e-mail]  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.

[Steven Pritchard]

On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 12:01:16AM -0500, [e-mail] 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

[Chris Weyl]

On 2/13/07, Steven Pritchard  wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 12:01:16AM -0500, [e-mail] 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

[Steven Pritchard]

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

[Chris Weyl]

On 2/14/07, Steven Pritchard  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 [e-mail] 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

[Paul Howarth]

On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 16:23 -0800, Chris Weyl wrote:
> On 2/14/07, Steven Pritchard  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 [e-mail] 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.

[Bug 228433] perl-version: EPEL branch?

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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 [e-mail]  2007-04-04 19:04 EST -------
Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: perl-version
New Branches: EL-4 EL-5
Updated EPEL Owners: [e-mail]
Updated EPEL CC: [e-mail]

[Bug 228433] perl-version: EPEL branch?

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-cvs?

[Bug 228433] perl-version: EPEL branch?

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
               Flag|fedora-cvs?                 |fedora-cvs+

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-04-06 01:59 EST -------
added

[Bug 228433] perl-version: EPEL branch?

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|normal                      |medium
            Product|Fedora Extras               |Fedora

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |CLOSED
         Resolution|                            |NEXTRELEASE

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-07-03 13:54 EST -------
Built. Sorry it took so long. :/

[Bug 228433] perl-version: EPEL branch?

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-cvs+                 |fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #6 from Marcela Mašláňová  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

[Bug 228433] perl-version: EPEL branch?

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #7 from Paul Howarth  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.

[Bug 228433] perl-version: EPEL branch?

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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  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

[Bug 228433] perl-version: EPEL branch?

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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  2011-02-02 17:28:33 EST ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).