On 01/02/2012 06:03 PM, Jim Meyering wrote: > Nils Philippsen wrote: > ... >> I've attached a list of packages and (co)maintainers, to easily find if >> one of your packages is affected or not. > ... >> iwhd: meyering - clalance,zaitcev > > Thank you for the list. > > I have just tried to build iwhd on F16 using a pretty recent gcc-4.7.x > (built manually: 4.7.0 20111202), and it worked fine, so I'm not quite > sure why iwhd is on the list. Maybe the gcc-4.7.x that Jakub used > lacks something that's in my Dec 2 snapshot, or maybe it's simply a > problem in a dependent that has been fixed in the interim. > > Oh!!! I see it. > The tested version (the one in rawhide) is iwhd-1.1, > while the latest is 1.2 (which is in F16). Shame on me > for not putting the latest also in rawhide. > > Is there some sort of reminder service that could be configured > to nag the maintainers of a package in a situation like this? > Personally, I would appreciate it, and I think Fedora would > benefit if we could do something to minimize reverse-version > skew between Fedora-latest and rawhide. > > Even if it's just a weekly posting of offenders to fedora-devel, > so people know it's an issue... I recently tried to add an F16 update without having the build in rawhide, and the update was rejected, saying the last built version in rawhide was older. I used the web interface to generate the update, but surely that logic is not just in the web interface? cheers, Pádraig. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
