How to handle a dead package in Fedora with a need in RHEL

[Paul Howarth]

On 10/09/10 10:15, Iain Arnell wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Paul Howarth<paul at city-fan.org>  wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 20:11:13 -0400
>> Matthew Miller<mattdm at mattdm.org>  wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 04:41:01PM -0700, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>>>> But the perl-Net-DNS-SEC package requires Digest::SHA which doesn't
>>>> exist on RHEL.  How do I convert a dead package on the fedora side
>>>> to a EL only set of branches?  I'd assume it'll be the original bug
>>>> request and re-opening a new branch? my biggest fear is that
>>>> something will shoot it dead again though.
>>>
>>> If you're going to maintain it in EPEL, could you maintain it in
>>> Fedora as well?
>>
>> The package went away in Fedora because it became part of perl core in
>> perl 5.10.0; this will also be the case in EL-6.
>
> Indeed, perl-Digest-SHA is available in the current RHEL6 beta[1] (and
> is even there for all architectures). The source rpm is perl
> itself[2].
>
>> However, in Fedora, some of the so-called dual-lived perl modules
>> (which are distributed both as part of perl itself and also
>> independently via CPAN) are being resurrected as such, so bringing it
>> back into Fedora is probably worthwhile anyway.
>
> But in that case it MUST NOT be resurrected in EPEL; we shouldn't be
> replacing RHEL packages with EPEL ones.

Indeed (for EPEL-6). And perl-Digest-SHA is already included in EPEL-5, 
so I'm wondering what Wes is looking to do, unless he wants it in EPEL-4 
too.

Paul.