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=226240
Summary: Merge Review: perl-Archive-Zip Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: nobody@fedoraproject.org QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com CC: rnorwood@redhat.com
Fedora Merge Review: perl-Archive-Zip
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/perl-Archive-Zip/ Initial Owner: rnorwood@redhat.com
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: perl-Archive-Zip
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226240
steve@silug.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |steve@silug.org
------- Additional Comments From steve@silug.org 2007-03-20 17:27 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=150536) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=150536&action=vie...) spec patch
- Update to 1.18. - Fix find option order. - Use fixperms macro instead of our own chmod incantation. - Remove check macro cruft. - Update build dependencies. - Package LICENSE. - BR unzip, zip for better test coverage.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: perl-Archive-Zip
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226240
steve@silug.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+
------- Additional Comments From steve@silug.org 2007-03-20 17:31 EST ------- I don't see where any of that are blockers.
APPROVED
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: perl-Archive-Zip
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226240
------- Additional Comments From steve@silug.org 2007-03-20 17:32 EST ------- Oh, I forgot to mention that the newer version introduces a build dependency on File::Which, which is in Extras.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: perl-Archive-Zip
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226240
wtogami@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO CC| |wtogami@redhat.com Flag| |needinfo?(steve@silug.org)
------- Additional Comments From wtogami@redhat.com 2007-03-20 18:04 EST ------- It doesn't appear to be any important bug fixes here. Could we wait on the version upgrade until after Fedora 7? (Moving a package now after the feature freeze is a bit of a pain.)
1.18 Wed 25 Oct 2006 - Adam Kennedy - Changing to a production version for final release - No other changes of any kind
1.17_05 Tue 19 Sep 2006 - Adam Kennedy - Seperated the classes from the main file into seperate packages. - Merged the Zip.pod into the main Zip.pm file. - Applied default Perl::Tidy to all of the source files, to improve the readability and maintainability of the files. - Added license in Makefile.PL - Added some additional entries to the realclean files
Could you resubmit with a cleaned up spec for the 1.16 version instead?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: perl-Archive-Zip
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226240
steve@silug.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(steve@silug.org) |
------- Additional Comments From steve@silug.org 2007-03-24 17:02 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4)
Could you resubmit with a cleaned up spec for the 1.16 version instead?
I'd rather just see the patch applied whenever it is convenient. It's all minor cleanup and changes related to the version upgrade.
The patch can't really be applied until after the merge anyway given the new dependency on File::Which.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: perl-Archive-Zip
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226240
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora
------- Additional Comments From steve@silug.org 2007-06-27 18:52 EST ------- It's after the merge... Ignoring the part about updating to the new version, my patch would still apply (and give better test coverage).
And then this bug could be closed too. :-)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: perl-Archive-Zip
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226240
rnorwood@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
------- Additional Comments From rnorwood@redhat.com 2007-06-27 23:33 EST ------- Done - perl-Archive-Zip-1_20-2_fc8
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=226240
Stepan Kasal skasal@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |skasal@redhat.com Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #8 from Stepan Kasal skasal@redhat.com 2008-11-03 11:28:28 EDT --- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: perl-Archive-Zip New Branch: EL-5 Owner: skasal@redhat.com
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=226240
Stepan Kasal skasal@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |
--- Comment #9 from Stepan Kasal skasal@redhat.com 2008-11-03 12:30:38 EDT --- oops, I withdraw the request from comment #8, the package is going to appear in RHEL-5. Thanks.
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=226240
--- Comment #10 from manuel wolfshant wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro 2008-11-07 22:14:24 EDT --- If/when it will appear in RHEL-5 (that is at least 3 months from now) it should have a newer e-v-r than what EPEL provides and everybody will be happy. Meanwhile we have a bunch of packages in EPEL-5 which cannot be installed due to this package not being available.
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=226240
Mathieu Bridon bochecha@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bochecha@fedoraproject.org
--- Comment #11 from Mathieu Bridon bochecha@fedoraproject.org 2011-01-19 04:10:42 EST --- This package is in EPEL5, but not in EPEL6. Is there any reason for that?
I would like to see this package in EPEL6, and I am willing to help co-maintain it.
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=226240
--- Comment #12 from Mathieu Bridon bochecha@fedoraproject.org 2011-01-19 04:39:53 EST --- Nevermind, I just saw it's in the RHEL6 Client repository (I was only looking at the Server one).
Sorry for the spam.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org