Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 30.03.2009 16:43, Xavier Bachelot wrote:
> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> Hi all!
>>
>> I prepared the next testing -> stable move for EPEL4 and EPEL5. I plan
>> to actually do the move on 20090402 at around 05:00 UTC.
>>
>> If one of your packages is in the attached "tobemoved-(s,)rpms-{4,5}"
>> list and you don't want it moved please tell me soon or it'll be to late
>> soon.
>
> Could you please add rt3 to the EL5 push ?[...]
Only after below stuff was fixed ;-)
> Here's a link to the diff between the rt3 spec that is currently in
> stable and the rt3 that is in testing :
>
http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/rt3/EL-5/rt3.spec?r1=1.22&r2...
>
The
+Requires: perl(Devel::Stacktrace) >= 1.19
Resulted in
package: rt3-3.6.7-2.el5.noarch from epel5-testing
unresolved deps:
perl(Devel::Stacktrace) >= 0:1.19
when running repoclosure against CentOS5 which was why I excluded it.
/me switches to a RHEL5 machine, runs "sudo yum install rt3
--enablerepo=epel-testing" and sees:
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
rt3-3.6.7-2.el5.noarch from epel-testing has depsolving problems
--> Missing Dependency: perl(Devel::Stacktrace) >= 1.19 is needed by
package rt3-3.6.7-2.el5.noarch (epel-testing)
Error: Missing Dependency: perl(Devel::Stacktrace) >= 1.19 is needed by
package rt3-3.6.7-2.el5.noarch (epel-testing)
Seems it must be "perl(Devel::StackTrace)" (with a upper case "T").
BTW, from
>
http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/rt3/EL-5/rt3.spec?r1=1.22&r2...
>
the diff again:
+Requires: perl(Devel::Stacktrace) >= 1.19
[...]
+- Enforce R: perl(Devel::Stacktrace) >= 1.20 (security).
Huhh?
CU
knurd
Ah, crap, I've seen your mail after launching the build. FWIW,
perl(Devel::StackTrace) >= 1.19 is correct, the changelog entry is
wrong. I've fixed the R:, but not the changelog entry. Does it worth yet
another build ?
Sorry, it must be one of these days... :-(
Count my vote in for an automated repoclosure run.
Regards,
Xavier