https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601 --- Comment #26 from Alex Vandiver <alexmv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Jason Tibbitts from comment #25) > Had no idea you were watching, Alex. Glad to know you folks are paying > attention, and hope you're happy that we're finally going to get an > up-to-date RT into Fedora. Absolutely. If there's anything we can do to make the packaging process easier -- or any other bugs you find that should be fixed upstream -- let us know. > Ralf, also, do you have any idea about packaging RT plugins? It might be > too much of a mess to get into (as you'd have to worry about plugin > compatibility for every RT update) but it might be nice to have some of them. Within a series (4.0.x or 4.2.x) plugin compatibility will not change; we're committed to not breaking backwards compatibility within stable series. All of the common plugins now publish metadata in their META.yml about which RT versions they're compatible with; see the "rt_too_new" and "requires_rt" keys in, for example, https://metacpan.org/source/ALEXMV/RT-Extension-SLA-1.04/META.yml - Alex -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review