On 10/09/10 10:15, Iain Arnell wrote:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Paul
Howarth<paul(a)city-fan.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 20:11:13 -0400
> Matthew Miller<mattdm(a)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.