Am Dienstag, den 08.09.2009, 11:50 -0400 schrieb Andrew Overholt:
> * Christoph Höger <choeger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2009-09-08 11:50]:
> > Am Dienstag, den 08.09.2009, 08:26 -0400 schrieb Andrew Overholt:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > * Christoph Höger <choeger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2009-09-07 07:41]:
> > > >
> > > > It looks to me as if rebuilding bsf with version 2.4.0 and including a
> > > > build requires on jython would be enough.
> > >
> > > Sounds fine to me. Does anything strictly need bsf < 2.4.0? I realize
> > > nothing will have a strict Requires <= but we should at least try to
> > > build the direct packages that need bsf to verify that they still build
> > > with 2.4.0.
> >
> > So I will proceed by building bsf 2.4.0 for f11, ok?
>
> I recommend doing a build for rawhide first.
Of course. I wasn't sure that this is still possible. I always miss
those frozen announcements.
> > I just don't know if I should just rebuild any packages that depend on
> > bsf ... Is there a way to inform the maintainers?
>
> You can use repoquery to see what Requires bsf and then use pkgdb or
> ${pkgname}-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx to email them.
Good idea, those are only four packages. Somehow I cannot find
ant-apache-bsf in the packagedb.
It seems like pcheung is the only maintainer that needs to be notified.
[choeger@choeger5 offlineimap]$ repoquery --whatrequires bsf
ant-apache-bsf-0:1.7.1-9.2.fc11.x86_64
jruby-0:1.1.6-3.fc11.x86_64
xdoclet-0:1.2.3-10.4.fc11.x86_64
bsh-0:1.3.0-14.fc11.x86_64
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
-- fedora-devel-java-list mailing list fedora-devel-java-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-java-list
