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=703101 Iain Arnell <iarnell@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |iarnell@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #3 from Iain Arnell <iarnell@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-05-09 06:32:51 EDT --- I think a hardcoded dependency on tzdata is a bad idea. For anyone with perl-DateTime installed, it would prevent updates of tzdata itself until a new perl-DateTime is also available. And since updates for EPEL must spend two weeks in testing, that would cause at least a two week delay for tzdata too. In Fedora, things are currently much better. I've already taken it upon myself to ensure that we're reasonably up to date everywhere (2011g is already in f15's perl-DateTime and making it's way through testing for f13 and f14). And to try to keep it that way. I considered pushing updates for EPEL too, but stopped when I realised that perl-DateTime is actually part of RHEL6 itself (optional channel, for some archs, not all). We only have it in EPEL6 to make it available for all archs; we shouldn't be overriding or updating the official RHEL6 version (bug #669320 deals with the problem that we are, though). I figured that if Red Hat aren't keeping the package up to date in EL6, it would be unusual for EPEL to maintain a newer version for EL4 and 5. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
