next testing -> stable move for EPEL4 and EPEL5 prepared, details inside

[Xavier Bachelot]

Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 30.03.2009 16:43, Xavier Bachelot wrote:
>> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>> Hi all!
>>>
>>> I prepared the next testing ->  stable move for EPEL4 and EPEL5. I plan
>>> to actually do the move on 20090402 at around 05:00 UTC.
>>>
>>> If one of your packages is in the attached "tobemoved-(s,)rpms-{4,5}"
>>> list and you don't want it moved please tell me soon or it'll be to late
>>> soon.
>>
>> Could you please add rt3 to the EL5 push ?[...]
> 
> Only after below stuff was fixed ;-)
> 
>> Here's a link to the diff between the rt3 spec that is currently in
>> stable and the rt3 that is in testing :
>> http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/rt3/EL-5/rt3.spec?r1=1.22&r2=1.23 
>>
> 
> The
> 
> +Requires: perl(Devel::Stacktrace) >= 1.19
> 
> Resulted in
> 
> package: rt3-3.6.7-2.el5.noarch from epel5-testing
>   unresolved deps:
>      perl(Devel::Stacktrace) >= 0:1.19
> 
> when running repoclosure against CentOS5 which was why I excluded it.
> 
> /me switches to a RHEL5 machine, runs "sudo yum install rt3 
> --enablerepo=epel-testing" and sees:
> 
> --> Finished Dependency Resolution
>  rt3-3.6.7-2.el5.noarch from epel-testing has depsolving problems
>  --> Missing Dependency: perl(Devel::Stacktrace) >= 1.19 is needed by 
> package rt3-3.6.7-2.el5.noarch (epel-testing)
> Error: Missing Dependency: perl(Devel::Stacktrace) >= 1.19 is needed by 
> package rt3-3.6.7-2.el5.noarch (epel-testing)
> 
> Seems it must be "perl(Devel::StackTrace)" (with a upper case "T").
> 
> BTW, from
>> http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/rt3/EL-5/rt3.spec?r1=1.22&r2=1.23 
>>
> the diff again:
> 
> +Requires: perl(Devel::Stacktrace) >= 1.19
> [...]
> +- Enforce R: perl(Devel::Stacktrace) >= 1.20 (security).
> 
> Huhh?
> 
> CU
> knurd

Ah, crap, I've seen your mail after launching the build. FWIW, 
perl(Devel::StackTrace) >= 1.19 is correct, the changelog entry is 
wrong. I've fixed the R:, but not the changelog entry. Does it worth yet 
another build ?
Sorry, it must be one of these days... :-(

Count my vote in for an automated repoclosure run.

Regards,
Xavier