On 10/09/10 10:15, Iain Arnell wrote: > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Paul Howarth<paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 20:11:13 -0400 >> Matthew Miller<mattdm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 04:41:01PM -0700, Wes Hardaker wrote: >>>> But the perl-Net-DNS-SEC package requires Digest::SHA which doesn't >>>> exist on RHEL. How do I convert a dead package on the fedora side >>>> to a EL only set of branches? I'd assume it'll be the original bug >>>> request and re-opening a new branch? my biggest fear is that >>>> something will shoot it dead again though. >>> >>> If you're going to maintain it in EPEL, could you maintain it in >>> Fedora as well? >> >> The package went away in Fedora because it became part of perl core in >> perl 5.10.0; this will also be the case in EL-6. > > Indeed, perl-Digest-SHA is available in the current RHEL6 beta[1] (and > is even there for all architectures). The source rpm is perl > itself[2]. > >> However, in Fedora, some of the so-called dual-lived perl modules >> (which are distributed both as part of perl itself and also >> independently via CPAN) are being resurrected as such, so bringing it >> back into Fedora is probably worthwhile anyway. > > But in that case it MUST NOT be resurrected in EPEL; we shouldn't be > replacing RHEL packages with EPEL ones. Indeed (for EPEL-6). And perl-Digest-SHA is already included in EPEL-5, so I'm wondering what Wes is looking to do, unless he wants it in EPEL-4 too. Paul. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
