[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: rpms that just need a rebuild...



Greg Swallow a écrit :
>I actually reported that as a bug in RHEL5 but was told to read the release notes - list of the missing ones in this bug report:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218220 

Thank's for the link.
It's the first reason why i became a contributor :
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190066


> Sounds good.  So just curious, what will be your philosophy in updating
> the EL5 rpms vs say the FC6 rpms?  Do you think you will just rebuild
> the same versions at the same time?  Or maybe update the FC6 rpm a
> week/month before the EL5 rpm (assuming the update is new features, not
> security)?

In the near future, FC6 could be the testing branch for EPEL, but when
it become EOL (F8), i'll have to think to another way...

php-pear are noarch but could have requires on php or pear version.

I don't know which pear version will be on RHEL5. Hopes for 1.5.0,
because 1.4.x has some problems with packaging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197940
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222557

Of course analysing each Changelog is the first thing i always do.

For example, php-pecl-zip would have been stick on 1.5.0 when 1.6.0 have
change the class name (it's just an example, i don't know if zip is
bundled with php on RHEL5).

My biggest chalenge will be to create patch to an old version when a new
version isn't compatible (API changes) but bugs are filed.

Of course, i'm waiting for (and will try to follow) the official policy
about version update on EPEL.

Remi.
P.S. hope my english is readable...


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]