https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2281865 --- Comment #3 from Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Yes, it was intentional. Normally when branching for EPEL I use the latest non-rebuild release, i.e. the last one in which a meaningful change happened. In this case, when looking at the package I noticed its use of deprecated %patch syntax so I fixed that, built it for rawhide and then rebuilt that for epel8. I looked but couldn't find any policy relating to having an upgrade path between EPEL versions so I think this is OK. I toyed with the idea of bumping the epel9 package too but that would be a fairly meaningless update for most users. What do you think? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2281865 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202281865%23c3 -- _______________________________________________ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
