From ghenry at suretecsystems.com Sat Sep 2 21:11:34 2006 From: ghenry at suretecsystems.com (Gavin Henry) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 22:11:34 +0100 (BST) Subject: Catalyst spec files now online - Sorry Message-ID: <50285.192.168.100.90.1157231494.squirrel@webmail.suretecsystems.com> These are in below zip, but are updated. http://www.suretecsystems.com/our_docs/Class-C3.spec http://www.suretecsystems.com/our_docs/DBIx-Class.spec http://www.suretecsystems.com/our_docs/Algorithm-C3.spec http://www.suretecsystems.com/our_docs/perl-module-specs.zip http://www.suretecsystems.com/our_docs/SQL-Translator-0.07-postgres-parser.patch Should of realised they'd bounce, doh! Thanks. -- Kind Regards, Gavin Henry. Managing Director. T +44 (0) 1224 279484 M +44 (0) 7930 323266 F +44 (0) 1224 824887 E ghenry at suretecsystems.com Open Source. Open Solutions(tm). http://www.suretecsystems.com/ From rmo at sunnmore.net Sun Sep 3 23:34:25 2006 From: rmo at sunnmore.net (Roy-Magne Mo) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 01:34:25 +0200 Subject: Catalyst spec files now online - Sorry In-Reply-To: <50285.192.168.100.90.1157231494.squirrel@webmail.suretecsystems.com> References: <50285.192.168.100.90.1157231494.squirrel@webmail.suretecsystems.com> Message-ID: <44FB6681.9070806@sunnmore.net> Gavin Henry wrote: > These are in below zip, but are updated. > > http://www.suretecsystems.com/our_docs/Class-C3.spec > http://www.suretecsystems.com/our_docs/DBIx-Class.spec > http://www.suretecsystems.com/our_docs/Algorithm-C3.spec > > > http://www.suretecsystems.com/our_docs/perl-module-specs.zip > http://www.suretecsystems.com/our_docs/SQL-Translator-0.07-postgres-parser.patch > > Should of realised they'd bounce, doh! Do you plan to get these into Extras? I've packaged these packages for my private use, and use cpanspec for a much better result than cpan2rpm. It seems to be a monumental job to get all these in, how about starting with DBIx::Class? I'll gladly help the effort :) -- Roy-Magne Mo From ghenry at suretecsystems.com Mon Sep 4 10:09:21 2006 From: ghenry at suretecsystems.com (Gavin Henry) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 11:09:21 +0100 (BST) Subject: Catalyst spec files now online - Sorry In-Reply-To: <44FB6681.9070806@sunnmore.net> References: <50285.192.168.100.90.1157231494.squirrel@webmail.suretecsystems.com> <44FB6681.9070806@sunnmore.net> Message-ID: <44700.80.229.93.1.1157364561.squirrel@webmail.suretecsystems.com> > Gavin Henry wrote: >> These are in below zip, but are updated. >> >> http://www.suretecsystems.com/our_docs/Class-C3.spec >> http://www.suretecsystems.com/our_docs/DBIx-Class.spec >> http://www.suretecsystems.com/our_docs/Algorithm-C3.spec >> >> >> http://www.suretecsystems.com/our_docs/perl-module-specs.zip >> http://www.suretecsystems.com/our_docs/SQL-Translator-0.07-postgres-parser.patch >> >> Should of realised they'd bounce, doh! > > Do you plan to get these into Extras? > > I've packaged these packages for my private use, and use cpanspec for a > much better result than cpan2rpm. > > It seems to be a monumental job to get all these in, how about starting > with DBIx::Class? > > I'll gladly help the effort :) Sounds like a plan, you can start ;-) > > -- > Roy-Magne Mo > > -- > Fedora Extras Perl SIG > http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl > Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list > Fedora-perl-devel-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list > From Nigel.Metheringham at dev.intechnology.co.uk Mon Sep 4 11:40:23 2006 From: Nigel.Metheringham at dev.intechnology.co.uk (Nigel Metheringham) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 12:40:23 +0100 Subject: Catalyst spec files now online - Sorry In-Reply-To: <44700.80.229.93.1.1157364561.squirrel@webmail.suretecsystems.com> References: <50285.192.168.100.90.1157231494.squirrel@webmail.suretecsystems.com> <44FB6681.9070806@sunnmore.net> <44700.80.229.93.1.1157364561.squirrel@webmail.suretecsystems.com> Message-ID: <1157370024.2740.20.camel@angua.localnet> [Coming in rather late to this - only just joined the list] The spec files there are mine, generated by a substantially hacked cpan2rpm, which is intended to get the dependencies right to allow the stuff to build in a minimal build root (I happen to use mach, but it ought to work (more slowly) within mock too). Basically I leverage more of the information within the CPAN package itself to produce a whole pile of additional BuildRequires information, and add some Requires too. I've not come across cpan2spec up to now - will try and have a go at that and ideally merge anything needed into there for future use. A few packages need manual spec tweaking after cpan2rpm, although not many. For DBIx::Class the *big* problem dependency is SQL::Translator. I package this as one big lump - which gives it a ton of additional dependencies (ie graphviz etc). The ideal would be for it to be broken into smaller pieces, although there would still be problems then as what commands you had available would depend on which SQLT modules were online. There were a few problems with rpm mishandling deps/reqs when building the package. Biggest one of those found recently is where modules have multiple classes in them, some of which are hidden - see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204800 for my bug filed on that. [there is one of those in the Class::C3 stuff which breaks things nicely unless you have an explicit Provide in there] I am using this stuff at work, and can put some effort from there to package and update (since I have to do the basic work anyway at present). I also need to build for RHEL so any srpms need to be RHEL friendly from my point of view. Cheers Nigel. -- [ Nigel Metheringham Nigel.Metheringham at InTechnology.co.uk ] [ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ] From steve at silug.org Mon Sep 4 16:07:56 2006 From: steve at silug.org (Steven Pritchard) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 11:07:56 -0500 Subject: Catalyst spec files now online - Sorry In-Reply-To: <44FB6681.9070806@sunnmore.net> References: <50285.192.168.100.90.1157231494.squirrel@webmail.suretecsystems.com> <44FB6681.9070806@sunnmore.net> Message-ID: <20060904160756.GA26876@osiris.silug.org> On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 01:34:25AM +0200, Roy-Magne Mo wrote: > I've packaged these packages for my private use, and use cpanspec for a > much better result than cpan2rpm. Speaking of cpanspec, I highly recommend trying --follow for modules with lots of dependencies (like Catalyst). It isn't perfect since it relies on the packages on CPAN having the proper dependecy information, but it definitely will make the job of packaging the dependencies *much* shorter. Steve -- Steven Pritchard - K&S Pritchard Enterprises, Inc. Email: steve at kspei.com http://www.kspei.com/ Phone: (618)398-3000 Mobile: (618)567-7320 From dave at dave.org.uk Mon Sep 4 22:25:49 2006 From: dave at dave.org.uk (Dave Cross) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 23:25:49 +0100 Subject: Catalyst spec files now online - Sorry In-Reply-To: <44FB6681.9070806@sunnmore.net> References: <50285.192.168.100.90.1157231494.squirrel@webmail.suretecsystems.com> <44FB6681.9070806@sunnmore.net> Message-ID: <44FCA7ED.5040203@dave.org.uk> Roy-Magne Mo wrote: > It seems to be a monumental job to get all these in, how about starting > with DBIx::Class? > > I'll gladly help the effort :) There seem to be some FC RPMs for DBIx::Class and Catalyst (and also Plagger, I'd _love_ to get Plagger in Fedora Extras!) online already at http://pub.woremacx.com/fedora/yum/i386/ Are they any use? I haven't used them yet. Dave... From rmo at sunnmore.net Tue Sep 5 00:50:58 2006 From: rmo at sunnmore.net (Roy-Magne Mo) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 02:50:58 +0200 Subject: Catalyst spec files now online - Sorry In-Reply-To: <44FCA7ED.5040203@dave.org.uk> References: <50285.192.168.100.90.1157231494.squirrel@webmail.suretecsystems.com> <44FB6681.9070806@sunnmore.net> <44FCA7ED.5040203@dave.org.uk> Message-ID: <44FCC9F2.5040807@sunnmore.net> Dave Cross wrote: > Roy-Magne Mo wrote: > >> It seems to be a monumental job to get all these in, how about starting >> with DBIx::Class? >> >> I'll gladly help the effort :) > > There seem to be some FC RPMs for DBIx::Class and Catalyst (and also > Plagger, I'd _love_ to get Plagger in Fedora Extras!) online already at > http://pub.woremacx.com/fedora/yum/i386/ Seems to be a little redundant work going around, I'll have a crack at SQL::Translator From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Sep 6 14:05:51 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 10:05:51 -0400 Subject: [Bug 205455] New: RFE: Versioned Obsoletes for built-in perl modules Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205455 Summary: RFE: Versioned Obsoletes for built-in perl modules Product: Fedora Core Version: fc5 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: perl AssignedTo: rnorwood at redhat.com ReportedBy: nj at leverton.org QAContact: dkl at redhat.com CC: fedora-perl-devel-list at redhat.com Description of problem: The perl rpm Obsoletes a number of modules which are now included in base perl 5.8.8. However some of these modules do get updated fairly regularly in between perl releases. As a system builder I prefer to update them by building an RPM with cpanflute for the specific module e.g. perl-Time-HiRes, so that I get simple and repeatable installations. But because of the Obsoletes in the perl RPM I have to remember which are in base perl and choose non-standard module names to get round it. If the Obsoletes tag could be made versioned, against the actual module version included in perl, it would simplify the task of keeping systems up to date between Fedora releases. It would also make it it much easier when Fedora perl is updated because $PACKAGE_MANAGER could be trusted not to remove newer modules. At the time of writing the tags for perl 5.8.8 would be: Obsoletes: perl-Digest-MD5 <= 2.36 Obsoletes: perl-MIME-Base64 <= 3.07 Obsoletes: perl-libnet <= 1.19 Obsoletes: perl-Storable <= 2.15 Obsoletes: perl-CGI <= 3.15 Obsoletes: perl-CPAN <= 1.7602 Obsoletes: perl-DB_File <= 1.814 Obsoletes: perl-Filter <= 1.32 Obsoletes: perl-Filter-Simple <= 0.82 Obsoletes: perl-Time-HiRes <= 1.86 Obsoletes: perl-Test-Builder-Tester <= 1.02 Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 5.8.8-8 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From cweyl at alumni.drew.edu Wed Sep 6 15:44:55 2006 From: cweyl at alumni.drew.edu (Chris Weyl) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 08:44:55 -0700 Subject: multiple packages provide perl(UNIVERSAL)? Message-ID: <7dd7ab490609060844x178333ffyc6fd9c860743a901@mail.gmail.com> So there I was, innocently packaging up SUPER (BZ205036), when I ran a repoquery on one of its requires... [root at zeus ~]# rpmquery --whatprovides 'perl(UNIVERSAL)' perl-5.8.8-5 perl-UNIVERSAL-moniker-0.08-3.fc5 perl-UNIVERSAL-require-0.10-1.fc5 perl-UNIVERSAL-exports-0.05-1.fc5 Is it just me, or should the provides perl(UNIVERSAL) be filtered from all packages except the base perl package? (It's quite possibly just me.) -Chris -- Chris Weyl Ex astris, scientia From cweyl at alumni.drew.edu Wed Sep 6 15:46:09 2006 From: cweyl at alumni.drew.edu (Chris Weyl) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 08:46:09 -0700 Subject: multiple packages provide perl(UNIVERSAL)? In-Reply-To: <7dd7ab490609060844x178333ffyc6fd9c860743a901@mail.gmail.com> References: <7dd7ab490609060844x178333ffyc6fd9c860743a901@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7dd7ab490609060846j2ad7d768jad8b87a4ba5c5ccb@mail.gmail.com> On 9/6/06, Chris Weyl wrote: > So there I was, innocently packaging up SUPER (BZ205036), when I ran a > repoquery on one of its requires... err, make that BZ205306. -- Chris Weyl Ex astris, scientia From rc040203 at freenet.de Thu Sep 7 05:24:18 2006 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 07:24:18 +0200 Subject: multiple packages provide perl(UNIVERSAL)? In-Reply-To: <7dd7ab490609060844x178333ffyc6fd9c860743a901@mail.gmail.com> References: <7dd7ab490609060844x178333ffyc6fd9c860743a901@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1157606658.4654.341.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 08:44 -0700, Chris Weyl wrote: > So there I was, innocently packaging up SUPER (BZ205036), when I ran a > repoquery on one of its requires... > > [root at zeus ~]# rpmquery --whatprovides 'perl(UNIVERSAL)' > perl-5.8.8-5 > perl-UNIVERSAL-moniker-0.08-3.fc5 > perl-UNIVERSAL-require-0.10-1.fc5 > perl-UNIVERSAL-exports-0.05-1.fc5 > > Is it just me, or should the provides perl(UNIVERSAL) be filtered from > all packages except the base perl package? (It's quite possibly just > me.) Nope, you are right. perl(UNIVERSAL) must only be provided by the package providing UNIVERSAL.pm, i.e. the base perl package. All others are wrong in providing perl(UNIVERSAL). Ralf From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 7 07:41:02 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 03:41:02 -0400 Subject: [Bug 205562] New: maybe shouldn't provide perl(DB) Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205562 Summary: maybe shouldn't provide perl(DB) Product: Fedora Core Version: test3 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: perl-Crypt-SSLeay AssignedTo: rnorwood at redhat.com ReportedBy: pertusus at free.fr CC: fedora-perl-devel-list at redhat.com Description of problem: I found by chance that perl-Crypt-SSLeay provides perl(DB), which is also provided by perl. So, at the first sight, it seems that there is something wrong. I haven't investigated more, so it may be completly right for perl-Crypt-SSLeay to provide perl(DB), if it is the case sorry for the noise.... Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From cweyl at alumni.drew.edu Thu Sep 7 16:05:47 2006 From: cweyl at alumni.drew.edu (Chris Weyl) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 09:05:47 -0700 Subject: multiple packages provide perl(UNIVERSAL)? In-Reply-To: <1157606658.4654.341.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <7dd7ab490609060844x178333ffyc6fd9c860743a901@mail.gmail.com> <1157606658.4654.341.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <7dd7ab490609070905j424b3cbkc88fc8c69f1d74cd@mail.gmail.com> On 9/6/06, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 08:44 -0700, Chris Weyl wrote: > > So there I was, innocently packaging up SUPER (BZ205036), when I ran a > > repoquery on one of its requires... > > > > [root at zeus ~]# rpmquery --whatprovides 'perl(UNIVERSAL)' > > perl-5.8.8-5 > > perl-UNIVERSAL-moniker-0.08-3.fc5 > > perl-UNIVERSAL-require-0.10-1.fc5 > > perl-UNIVERSAL-exports-0.05-1.fc5 > > > > Is it just me, or should the provides perl(UNIVERSAL) be filtered from > > all packages except the base perl package? (It's quite possibly just > > me.) > Nope, you are right. > > perl(UNIVERSAL) must only be provided by the package providing > UNIVERSAL.pm, i.e. the base perl package. All others are wrong in > providing perl(UNIVERSAL). Thanks Ralf :) I'll start filing bugs when I get a few minutes free... -Chris -- Chris Weyl Ex astris, scientia From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 7 16:10:46 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 12:10:46 -0400 Subject: [Bug 205607] New: Errant provide: perl(UNIVERSAL) Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205607 Summary: Errant provide: perl(UNIVERSAL) Product: Fedora Extras Version: fc5 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: perl-UNIVERSAL-exports AssignedTo: tcallawa at redhat.com ReportedBy: cweyl at alumni.drew.edu QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org,fedora-perl-devel- list at redhat.com This package provides perl(UNIVERSAL), which is properly provided by the base perl package. (This bug is valid for devel also, but BZ won't allow multiple version selections.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 7 16:13:09 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 12:13:09 -0400 Subject: [Bug 205608] New: Errant provide: perl(UNIVERSAL) Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205608 Summary: Errant provide: perl(UNIVERSAL) Product: Fedora Extras Version: fc5 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: perl-UNIVERSAL-moniker AssignedTo: tcallawa at redhat.com ReportedBy: cweyl at alumni.drew.edu QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org,fedora-perl-devel- list at redhat.com This package provides perl(UNIVERSAL), which is properly provided by the base perl package. (This bug is valid for devel also, but BZ won't allow multiple version selections.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 7 16:14:35 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 12:14:35 -0400 Subject: [Bug 205609] New: Errant provide: perl(UNIVERSAL) Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205609 Summary: Errant provide: perl(UNIVERSAL) Product: Fedora Extras Version: fc5 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: perl-UNIVERSAL-require AssignedTo: tcallawa at redhat.com ReportedBy: cweyl at alumni.drew.edu QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org,fedora-perl-devel- list at redhat.com This package provides perl(UNIVERSAL), which is properly provided by the base perl package. (This bug is valid for devel also, but BZ won't allow multiple version selections.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 7 20:55:57 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 16:55:57 -0400 Subject: [Bug 205562] maybe shouldn't provide perl(DB) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200609072055.k87KtvXK027434@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: maybe shouldn't provide perl(DB) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205562 ianburrell at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ianburrell at gmail.com ------- Additional Comments From ianburrell at gmail.com 2006-09-07 16:55 EST ------- This is caused by the /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/Net/SSL.pm file containing the line: package DB; This causes the perl provides finder to think it provides "perl(DB)". It looks like the code is using the Perl debugging API to reach up the stack (a pretty nasty hack). I am not sure why it is doing "package DB" instead of "require DB". The provides should definitely be filtered out. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From kcorbin at theiqgroup.com Fri Sep 8 13:31:57 2006 From: kcorbin at theiqgroup.com (Kelly Corbin) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 08:31:57 -0500 Subject: Updating perl modules inside the base perl package Message-ID: <450170CD.8040700@theiqgroup.com> First of all, if I've asked this question to the inappropriate list, I apologize. I've asked other lists with no response as I think it may be outside many users expertise. And, it seemed this list *was* the most appropriate place to ask. Here's my question: Can anyone point me in the direction to steps or documentation to update the perl modules inside the base perl package for RHEL or Fedora? We need newer versions of a couple modules that are integrated in the package (instead of being separate modules that we can upgrade individually, grrr!) and I wanted to know how the package maintainers do it so I can do it myself. Then I can update the perl package with the newer modules we need as it is updated from Red Hat. Thanks! Kelly -- -------------------------------------------- -- Kelly Corbin -- Network Administrator -- -- http://www.theiqgroup.com -- -- The IQ Group, Inc. -- 6740 Antioch Suite 260 -- Merriam, KS 66204 -- (913)-722-6700 x105 -- Fax 866-714-7282 -------------------------------------------- From rmo at sunnmore.net Fri Sep 8 16:45:00 2006 From: rmo at sunnmore.net (Roy-Magne Mo) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 18:45:00 +0200 Subject: Updating perl modules inside the base perl package In-Reply-To: <450170CD.8040700@theiqgroup.com> References: <450170CD.8040700@theiqgroup.com> Message-ID: <45019E0C.9040208@sunnmore.net> Kelly Corbin wrote: > Here's my question: Can anyone point me in the direction to steps or > documentation to update the perl modules inside the base perl package > for RHEL or Fedora? We need newer versions of a couple modules that are > integrated in the package (instead of being separate modules that we can > upgrade individually, grrr!) and I wanted to know how the package > maintainers do it so I can do it myself. Then I can update the perl > package with the newer modules we need as it is updated from Red Hat. I guess the correct solution should be the perl package creates subpackages for all it's bundled modules. This way you could create a private repo that had the newer versions. Would this create too much hassle to do? -- Roy-Magne Mo From ianburrell at gmail.com Fri Sep 8 16:55:01 2006 From: ianburrell at gmail.com (Ian Burrell) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 09:55:01 -0700 Subject: Updating perl modules inside the base perl package In-Reply-To: <450170CD.8040700@theiqgroup.com> References: <450170CD.8040700@theiqgroup.com> Message-ID: On 9/8/06, Kelly Corbin wrote: > First of all, if I've asked this question to the inappropriate list, I > apologize. I've asked other lists with no response as I think it may be > outside many users expertise. And, it seemed this list *was* the most > appropriate place to ask. > > Here's my question: Can anyone point me in the direction to steps or > documentation to update the perl modules inside the base perl package > for RHEL or Fedora? We need newer versions of a couple modules that are > integrated in the package (instead of being separate modules that we can > upgrade individually, grrr!) and I wanted to know how the package > maintainers do it so I can do it myself. Then I can update the perl > package with the newer modules we need as it is updated from Red Hat. > Do the modules have a separate life in CPAN? There are a few like CGI and CPAN that are included in the perl but also distributed separately. The perl RPM has obsoletes tp get rid of the old separate packages. One solution is to modify the perl spec to remove the obsolete (or make them versioned). There was a recent bug about doing this for Fedora. Then you would build and install separate packages for the newer version. If you need newer versions of the modules that are only distributed with perl, you would be better off upgrading to the newest version of Perl. It is possible that everything will work with only a few modules upgraded, but it is also possible there are subtle dependencies. Not to mention the difficult of even getting the newer files into the RPM. My impression is that the FC5 perl 5.8.8 can be rebuilt on RHEL 3 and RHEL 4. - Ian From Nigel.Metheringham at dev.intechnology.co.uk Fri Sep 8 17:46:00 2006 From: Nigel.Metheringham at dev.intechnology.co.uk (Nigel Metheringham) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 18:46:00 +0100 Subject: Updating perl modules inside the base perl package In-Reply-To: References: <450170CD.8040700@theiqgroup.com> Message-ID: <4501AC58.3040608@dev.intechnology.co.uk> Ian Burrell wrote: > Do the modules have a separate life in CPAN? There are a few like CGI > and CPAN that are included in the perl but also distributed > separately. The perl RPM has obsoletes tp get rid of the old separate > packages. One solution is to modify the perl spec to remove the > obsolete (or make them versioned). There was a recent bug about doing > this for Fedora. Then you would build and install separate packages > for the newer version. An example of modules that I have problems with in RHEL/Centos (not Fedora as that has a much more recent version of perl) are:- * Test::Simple * Scalar::Util The last is particularly relevant as the one that ships with RHEL4 perl does not handle weaken, so some stuff just cannot work without it. Updating all of perl and keeping your own perl rpm maintained is a complete pain. And if you do drastically upgrade perl (ie use the Fedora 5 rpm rebuilt for RHEL) then you will probably have to rebuild a pile of the other rpms to match too. Being able to deal with individual packages would be far far better. Or being able to override stock modules with later versions without needing deep INC mangling magic would be good too. Nigel. From ianburrell at gmail.com Fri Sep 8 18:48:57 2006 From: ianburrell at gmail.com (Ian Burrell) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 11:48:57 -0700 Subject: Updating perl modules inside the base perl package In-Reply-To: <4501AC58.3040608@dev.intechnology.co.uk> References: <450170CD.8040700@theiqgroup.com> <4501AC58.3040608@dev.intechnology.co.uk> Message-ID: On 9/8/06, Nigel Metheringham wrote: > Ian Burrell wrote: > > Do the modules have a separate life in CPAN? There are a few like CGI > > and CPAN that are included in the perl but also distributed > > separately. The perl RPM has obsoletes tp get rid of the old separate > > packages. One solution is to modify the perl spec to remove the > > obsolete (or make them versioned). There was a recent bug about doing > > this for Fedora. Then you would build and install separate packages > > for the newer version. > > An example of modules that I have problems with in RHEL/Centos (not > Fedora as that has a much more recent version of perl) are:- > > * Test::Simple > * Scalar::Util > > The last is particularly relevant as the one that ships with RHEL4 perl > does not handle weaken, so some stuff just cannot work without it. > > Updating all of perl and keeping your own perl rpm maintained is a > complete pain. And if you do drastically upgrade perl (ie use the > Fedora 5 rpm rebuilt for RHEL) then you will probably have to rebuild a > pile of the other rpms to match too. > > Being able to deal with individual packages would be far far better. Or > being able to override stock modules with later versions without needing > deep INC mangling magic would be good too. > Those both have separate distributions on CPAN in addition to being included in perl. Separate packages could be built from the newer releases. Unfortunately, there is a problem in getting them used. On RHEL 4 is that the include directories go (taking out multiple versions and binary directories): /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.5 /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5 /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.5 If you install the separate packages in vendor_perl (this requires special options while building), they won't be used. If you install them in /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.5 (the default), the files will conflict with the perl RPM. The FC5 perl fixes the problem by changing the order so that the vendor_perl directory comes first. /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8 /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8 /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.8 My impression is that the RHEL 4 perl 5.8.5 is binary compatible with the FC5 5.8.8. This is controlled by the "perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.3)" requirements. And by the default INC including the 5.8.3/i386-linux-thread-multi and later direcrtories. - Ian From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Sep 11 19:04:37 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 15:04:37 -0400 Subject: [Bug 205607] Errant provide: perl(UNIVERSAL) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200609111904.k8BJ4bnp020547@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Errant provide: perl(UNIVERSAL) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205607 tcallawa at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE Fixed In Version| |0.05-2 ------- Additional Comments From tcallawa at redhat.com 2006-09-11 15:04 EST ------- Fixed in 0.05-2. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Sep 11 19:08:18 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 15:08:18 -0400 Subject: [Bug 205608] Errant provide: perl(UNIVERSAL) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200609111908.k8BJ8Ilx020769@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Errant provide: perl(UNIVERSAL) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205608 tcallawa at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE Fixed In Version| |0.08-4 ------- Additional Comments From tcallawa at redhat.com 2006-09-11 15:08 EST ------- Fixed in 0.08-4. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Sep 11 19:20:25 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 15:20:25 -0400 Subject: [Bug 205609] Errant provide: perl(UNIVERSAL) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200609111920.k8BJKPWG021693@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Errant provide: perl(UNIVERSAL) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205609 tcallawa at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE Fixed In Version| |0.10-2 ------- Additional Comments From tcallawa at redhat.com 2006-09-11 15:20 EST ------- Fixed in 0.10-2 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From rnorwood at redhat.com Wed Sep 13 16:43:16 2006 From: rnorwood at redhat.com (Robin Norwood) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 12:43:16 -0400 Subject: Updating perl modules inside the base perl package In-Reply-To: (Ian Burrell's message of "Fri, 8 Sep 2006 11:48:57 -0700") References: <450170CD.8040700@theiqgroup.com> <4501AC58.3040608@dev.intechnology.co.uk> Message-ID: "Ian Burrell" writes: > On 9/8/06, Nigel Metheringham wrote: >> Ian Burrell wrote: [...] > Those both have separate distributions on CPAN in addition to being > included in perl. Separate packages could be built from the newer > releases. Unfortunately, there is a problem in getting them used. On > RHEL 4 is that the include directories go (taking out multiple > versions and binary directories): > > /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.5 > /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5 > /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.5 > > If you install the separate packages in vendor_perl (this requires > special options while building), they won't be used. If you install > them in /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.5 (the default), the files will conflict > with the perl RPM. The FC5 perl fixes the problem by changing the > order so that the vendor_perl directory comes first. > > /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8 > /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8 > /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.8 > > My impression is that the RHEL 4 perl 5.8.5 is binary compatible with > the FC5 5.8.8. This is controlled by the "perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.3)" > requirements. And by the default INC including the > 5.8.3/i386-linux-thread-multi and later direcrtories. Using site_perl and/or vendor_perl is certainly the right way to fix this for releases that have the @INC order right. I'm not sure what to recommend to the OP besides either rebuilding the perl package, or possibly a dirty hack like: o Have 'your' versions of the modules installed in a directory (/foo/bar) o Put a 'use lib "/foo/bar"' at the top of all the scripts Since use lib prepends to @INC, that 'should work'. Anyone have a better, or at least 'less bad', idea? -RN -- Robin Norwood Red Hat, Inc. "The Sage does nothing, yet nothing remains undone." -Lao Tzu, Te Tao Ching From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 15 20:54:05 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:54:05 -0400 Subject: [Bug 202310] perl-DBI: update request to version 1.52 (FC-5 and rawhide) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200609152054.k8FKs5iV010672@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: perl-DBI: update request to version 1.52 (FC-5 and rawhide) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202310 ------- Additional Comments From updates at fedora.redhat.com 2006-09-15 16:53 EST ------- perl-DBI-1.52-1.fc5 has been pushed for fc5, which should resolve this issue. If these problems are still present in this version, then please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Sep 17 02:38:55 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 22:38:55 -0400 Subject: [Bug 175439] [FC4 Regression]: spamc doesn't use localhost by default In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200609170238.k8H2ctLP022558@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: [FC4 Regression]: spamc doesn't use localhost by default https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175439 davej at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|fc4 |fc5 Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |NEEDINFO ------- Additional Comments From davej at redhat.com 2006-09-16 22:38 EST ------- [This comment added as part of a mass-update to all open FC4 kernel bugs] FC4 has now transitioned to the Fedora legacy project, which will continue to release security related updates for the kernel. As this bug is not security related, it is unlikely to be fixed in an update for FC4, and has been migrated to FC5. Please retest with Fedora Core 5. Thank you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From jpo at di.uminho.pt Sun Sep 17 15:46:53 2006 From: jpo at di.uminho.pt (Jose Pedro Oliveira) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 16:46:53 +0100 Subject: A couple of requests for FC-6 Message-ID: <450D6DED.9090009@di.uminho.pt> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Robin, It would be nice to have the following topics taken care before the FC-6 final release: 1. Rawhide: perl packages to update ====================================================================== Fedora Core Development CPAN ------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive-Tar-1.29 (Archive-Tar-1.30.tar.gz) DBD-MySQL-3.0006 (DBD-mysql-3.0007.tar.gz) Devel-Symdump-2.0601 (Devel-Symdump-2.0602.tar.gz) IO-Socket-SSL-0.998 (IO-Socket-SSL-1.01.tar.gz) PDL-2.4.2 (PDL-2.4.3.tar.gz) ------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: There is already a bugzilla ticket opened requesting the IO::Socket::SSL update (bugzilla ticket 206782). 2. Rawhide perl package: drop directory support for perl 5.8.3 and 5.84 ====================================================================== Removing support for perl 5.8.3 and perl 5.8.4 reduces the number of directories in the perl search path (@INC), which improves the perl modules loading time. This has already been done in past for FC-4 where support for perl 5.8.0/5.8.1/5.8.2 has dropped. perl specfile patch: -------------------- --- perl.spec.588_8 2006-07-14 22:22:06.000000000 +0100 +++ perl.spec 2006-09-17 16:10:58.000000000 +0100 @@ -26,9 +26,7 @@ Provides: perl(:WITHOUT_THREADS) %endif -%define perlmodcompat 5.8.7 5.8.6 5.8.5 5.8.4 5.8.3 -Provides: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.3) -Provides: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.4) +%define perlmodcompat 5.8.7 5.8.6 5.8.5 Provides: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.5) Provides: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.6) Provides: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.7) -------------------- Note: The FC-4 change was reported in the Release Notes. 3. Rawhide perl-LDAP: enable LDAPS support ====================================================================== Now that perl-IO-Socket-SSL and perl-Net-SSLeay are core packages it would be great to have the package perl-LDAP pulling in perl-IO-Socket-SSL automatically. More information available in the following bugzilla ticket: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=122066 Regards, jpo - -- Jos? Pedro Oliveira * mailto: jpo at di.uminho.pt * http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo * * gpg fingerprint = F9B6 8D87 859D 1C94 48F0 84C0 9749 9EB5 91BD 851B * -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFDW3tl0metZG9hRsRAlvGAJ9vLVOt15Hle6K8wrQtjSKna0rBEQCeMRIZ 6nKCeV5G//YDcOI6w5lI620= =3Su8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4616 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From ianburrell at gmail.com Sun Sep 17 20:46:23 2006 From: ianburrell at gmail.com (Ian Burrell) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 13:46:23 -0700 Subject: A couple of requests for FC-6 In-Reply-To: <450D6DED.9090009@di.uminho.pt> References: <450D6DED.9090009@di.uminho.pt> Message-ID: On 9/17/06, Jose Pedro Oliveira wrote: > > 2. Rawhide perl package: drop directory support for perl 5.8.3 and 5.84 > ====================================================================== > > Removing support for perl 5.8.3 and perl 5.8.4 reduces the number > of directories in the perl search path (@INC), which improves the > perl modules loading time. > > This has already been done in past for FC-4 where support for > perl 5.8.0/5.8.1/5.8.2 has dropped. > > perl specfile patch: > -------------------- > --- perl.spec.588_8 2006-07-14 22:22:06.000000000 +0100 > +++ perl.spec 2006-09-17 16:10:58.000000000 +0100 > @@ -26,9 +26,7 @@ > Provides: perl(:WITHOUT_THREADS) > %endif > > -%define perlmodcompat 5.8.7 5.8.6 5.8.5 5.8.4 5.8.3 > -Provides: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.3) > -Provides: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.4) > +%define perlmodcompat 5.8.7 5.8.6 5.8.5 > Provides: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.5) > Provides: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.6) > Provides: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.7) > -------------------- > > Note: > The FC-4 change was reported in the Release Notes. > I thought the FC-4 change was done because 5.8.6 was not binary compatible with modules built for 5.8.2 and earlier. Perl changed binary module compatibility at 5.8.3. All versions since then have maintained binary module compatibility. The FC-3 perl 5.8.5 had a bug in that it included the MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.2 and earlier and could have loaded incompatible modules. How big is the performance boost? - Ian From jpazdziora at redhat.com Mon Sep 18 14:45:13 2006 From: jpazdziora at redhat.com (Jan Pazdziora) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:45:13 +0200 Subject: A couple of requests for FC-6 In-Reply-To: References: <450D6DED.9090009@di.uminho.pt> Message-ID: <20060918144513.GG10340@ditustat.redhat.usu> On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 01:46:23PM -0700, Ian Burrell wrote: > > > > Removing support for perl 5.8.3 and perl 5.8.4 reduces the number > > of directories in the perl search path (@INC), which improves the > > perl modules loading time. > > > > This has already been done in past for FC-4 where support for > > perl 5.8.0/5.8.1/5.8.2 has dropped. [...] > > perl specfile patch: > > -------------------- > > --- perl.spec.588_8 2006-07-14 22:22:06.000000000 +0100 > > +++ perl.spec 2006-09-17 16:10:58.000000000 +0100 > > @@ -26,9 +26,7 @@ > > Provides: perl(:WITHOUT_THREADS) > > %endif > > > > -%define perlmodcompat 5.8.7 5.8.6 5.8.5 5.8.4 5.8.3 > > -Provides: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.3) > > -Provides: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.4) > > +%define perlmodcompat 5.8.7 5.8.6 5.8.5 > > Provides: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.5) > > Provides: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.6) > > Provides: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.7) > > -------------------- > > > > Note: > > The FC-4 change was reported in the Release Notes. > > I thought the FC-4 change was done because 5.8.6 was not binary > compatible with modules built for 5.8.2 and earlier. Perl changed > binary module compatibility at 5.8.3. All versions since then have > maintained binary module compatibility. The FC-3 perl 5.8.5 had a bug > in that it included the MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.2 and earlier and could have > loaded incompatible modules. > > How big is the performance boost? Checking use DBI; using strace perl -MDBI -e 1 2>&1 | egrep '5.8.[34]' | wc -l shows 240 stat64's, all coming from searches in site_perl and vendor_perl directories. For -MCGI it's 164. However: what happens if the user was upgrading from older perls and still has some (presumably nonstandard) modules in these paths? Will the %post somehow move them to newer directories? -- Jan Pazdziora RHN Sustaining Engineering, Red Hat From rnorwood at redhat.com Mon Sep 18 15:25:04 2006 From: rnorwood at redhat.com (Robin Norwood) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 11:25:04 -0400 Subject: A couple of requests for FC-6 In-Reply-To: <450D6DED.9090009@di.uminho.pt> (Jose Pedro Oliveira's message of "Sun, 17 Sep 2006 16:46:53 +0100") References: <450D6DED.9090009@di.uminho.pt> Message-ID: Jose, Thanks for pointing these out - I'll try to look into them tonight. With fc6 test3 out, I'm going to need to provide the release team with a 'good reason' for the updates. I can look through the change logs, but if you know of any specific bugs that these updates will fix, sending them my way via bugzilla would help me out tremendously. -RN Jose Pedro Oliveira writes: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Robin, > > It would be nice to have the following topics taken care before > the FC-6 final release: > > > 1. Rawhide: perl packages to update > ====================================================================== > > Fedora Core Development CPAN > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Archive-Tar-1.29 (Archive-Tar-1.30.tar.gz) > DBD-MySQL-3.0006 (DBD-mysql-3.0007.tar.gz) > Devel-Symdump-2.0601 (Devel-Symdump-2.0602.tar.gz) > IO-Socket-SSL-0.998 (IO-Socket-SSL-1.01.tar.gz) > PDL-2.4.2 (PDL-2.4.3.tar.gz) > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Note: > There is already a bugzilla ticket opened requesting the > IO::Socket::SSL update (bugzilla ticket 206782). > > > 2. Rawhide perl package: drop directory support for perl 5.8.3 and 5.84 > ====================================================================== > > Removing support for perl 5.8.3 and perl 5.8.4 reduces the number > of directories in the perl search path (@INC), which improves the > perl modules loading time. > > This has already been done in past for FC-4 where support for > perl 5.8.0/5.8.1/5.8.2 has dropped. > > perl specfile patch: > -------------------- > --- perl.spec.588_8 2006-07-14 22:22:06.000000000 +0100 > +++ perl.spec 2006-09-17 16:10:58.000000000 +0100 > @@ -26,9 +26,7 @@ > Provides: perl(:WITHOUT_THREADS) > %endif > > -%define perlmodcompat 5.8.7 5.8.6 5.8.5 5.8.4 5.8.3 > -Provides: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.3) > -Provides: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.4) > +%define perlmodcompat 5.8.7 5.8.6 5.8.5 > Provides: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.5) > Provides: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.6) > Provides: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.7) > -------------------- > > Note: > The FC-4 change was reported in the Release Notes. > > > > 3. Rawhide perl-LDAP: enable LDAPS support > ====================================================================== > > Now that perl-IO-Socket-SSL and perl-Net-SSLeay are core packages > it would be great to have the package perl-LDAP pulling in > perl-IO-Socket-SSL automatically. > > More information available in the following bugzilla ticket: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=122066 > > > > Regards, > jpo > - -- > Jos? Pedro Oliveira > * mailto: jpo at di.uminho.pt * http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo * > * gpg fingerprint = F9B6 8D87 859D 1C94 48F0 84C0 9749 9EB5 91BD 851B * > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFFDW3tl0metZG9hRsRAlvGAJ9vLVOt15Hle6K8wrQtjSKna0rBEQCeMRIZ > 6nKCeV5G//YDcOI6w5lI620= > =3Su8 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Robin Norwood Red Hat, Inc. "The Sage does nothing, yet nothing remains undone." -Lao Tzu, Te Tao Ching From rnorwood at redhat.com Mon Sep 18 15:29:50 2006 From: rnorwood at redhat.com (Robin Norwood) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 11:29:50 -0400 Subject: A couple of requests for FC-6 In-Reply-To: <20060918144513.GG10340@ditustat.redhat.usu> (Jan Pazdziora's message of "Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:45:13 +0200") References: <450D6DED.9090009@di.uminho.pt> <20060918144513.GG10340@ditustat.redhat.usu> Message-ID: Jan Pazdziora writes: [...] >> I thought the FC-4 change was done because 5.8.6 was not binary >> compatible with modules built for 5.8.2 and earlier. Perl changed >> binary module compatibility at 5.8.3. All versions since then have >> maintained binary module compatibility. The FC-3 perl 5.8.5 had a bug >> in that it included the MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.2 and earlier and could have >> loaded incompatible modules. >> >> How big is the performance boost? > > Checking > > use DBI; > > using > > strace perl -MDBI -e 1 2>&1 | egrep '5.8.[34]' | wc -l > > shows 240 stat64's, all coming from searches in site_perl and > vendor_perl directories. For -MCGI it's 164. > > However: what happens if the user was upgrading from older perls and > still has some (presumably nonstandard) modules in these paths? Will > the %post somehow move them to newer directories? I'm not really sure how that would work - has this been done in the past? It would be tricky in the first place to tell which ones are 'nonstandard' - I guess 'not owned by an rpm, and wouldn't be copied over a file owned by an rpm' would be a good heuristic to start with. That seems a little bit more magic than is healthy for a %post script. OTOH, I'd rather not break everyone's perl modules. -RN -- Robin Norwood Red Hat, Inc. "The Sage does nothing, yet nothing remains undone." -Lao Tzu, Te Tao Ching From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Sep 18 23:21:57 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 19:21:57 -0400 Subject: [Bug 207049] New: all mail is being marked as spam even if the score doesn't make it spam Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207049 Summary: all mail is being marked as spam even if the score doesn't make it spam Product: Fedora Core Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: spamassassin AssignedTo: wtogami at redhat.com ReportedBy: davej at redhat.com CC: fedora-perl-devel- list at redhat.com,felicity at kluge.net,jm at jmason.org,parkerm @pobox.com,reg+redhat at sidney.com,wtogami at redhat.com From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Sep 18 23:41:43 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 19:41:43 -0400 Subject: [Bug 207049] all mail is being marked as spam even if the score doesn't make it spam In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200609182341.k8INfhf0027728@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: all mail is being marked as spam even if the score doesn't make it spam https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207049 ------- Additional Comments From davej at redhat.com 2006-09-18 19:41 EST ------- Actually I take that last part back, it's not doing this to all mail, but a sizable chunk of it. I'll try to determine a pattern in the affected mails. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Sep 19 00:34:44 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 20:34:44 -0400 Subject: [Bug 207049] all mail is being marked as spam even if the score doesn't make it spam In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200609190034.k8J0YivX029917@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: all mail is being marked as spam even if the score doesn't make it spam https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207049 ------- Additional Comments From reg+redhat at sidney.com 2006-09-18 20:33 EST ------- UNPARSEABLE_RELAY may result from not properly interpreting a Received header. If it happens often, it may be the Received header from a local mail server, perhaps one of your MX servers if it doesn't happen every time. There have been some fixes to recognize certain headers that were flagged as unparseable. However, it is most likely that you are seeing the rule hit based on Received headers for a local server that should be listed using the internal_network and/or trusted_network options, as explained in http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/TrustPath -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Sep 19 02:48:55 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:48:55 -0400 Subject: [Bug 207049] all mail is being marked as spam even if the score doesn't make it spam In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200609190248.k8J2mtVK004081@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: all mail is being marked as spam even if the score doesn't make it spam https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207049 ------- Additional Comments From davej at redhat.com 2006-09-18 22:48 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=136596) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=136596&action=view) complete headers for a failing message. The Received: lines in this header look ok to me. (I munged some of the addresses in this message, but the pertinent fields remain untouched). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Sep 19 02:50:01 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:50:01 -0400 Subject: [Bug 207049] all mail is being marked as spam even if the score doesn't make it spam In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200609190250.k8J2o1Id004180@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: all mail is being marked as spam even if the score doesn't make it spam https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207049 davej at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #136596|application/octet-stream |text/plain mime type| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Sep 19 02:55:22 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:55:22 -0400 Subject: [Bug 207049] all mail is being marked as spam even if the score doesn't make it spam In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200609190255.k8J2tMaR004507@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: all mail is being marked as spam even if the score doesn't make it spam https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207049 ------- Additional Comments From davej at redhat.com 2006-09-18 22:55 EST ------- btw, even if the unparsable headers rule was problematic, that doesn't explain this.. Yes, score=0.4 required=5.0 Even if that rule was being triggered correctly, 0.4 is still < 5.0, so why it chose "Yes" instead of "No" is mysterious. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Sep 19 05:29:38 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 01:29:38 -0400 Subject: [Bug 207049] all mail is being marked as spam even if the score doesn't make it spam In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200609190529.k8J5Tcg4013228@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: all mail is being marked as spam even if the score doesn't make it spam https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207049 ------- Additional Comments From reg+redhat at sidney.com 2006-09-19 01:29 EST ------- The UNPARSEABLE_RELAY comes from the header Received: from pobox.devel.redhat.com ([unix socket]) The headers are correctly parsed and recognized as ALL_TRUSTED in the current SpamAssassin 3.2 development tree (upstream), but not the 3.1 branch. I didn't notice the anomaly in the scores. Aside from it being labeled as spam even though the score does not exceed the 5.0 threshold, it does look like something is wrong with the configuration. UNPARSEABLE_RELAY is supposed to have a score of 0.001. It is not a spam sign. It is only used as part of identifying Received headers that can be used for determining things, and as an informational indicator. That doesn't answer what caused this message to be labeled spam. The output from spamassassin -D applied to the message would show what is going on. I can't reproduce the scoring problem myself. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From jpazdziora at redhat.com Tue Sep 19 09:17:08 2006 From: jpazdziora at redhat.com (Jan Pazdziora) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 11:17:08 +0200 Subject: A couple of requests for FC-6 In-Reply-To: References: <450D6DED.9090009@di.uminho.pt> <20060918144513.GG10340@ditustat.redhat.usu> Message-ID: <20060919091708.GE26760@ditustat.redhat.usu> On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 11:29:50AM -0400, Robin Norwood wrote: > > > > However: what happens if the user was upgrading from older perls and > > still has some (presumably nonstandard) modules in these paths? Will > > the %post somehow move them to newer directories? > > I'm not really sure how that would work - has this been done in the > past? Not to my knowledge. It was just an idea. > It would be tricky in the first place to tell which ones are > 'nonstandard' - I guess 'not owned by an rpm, and wouldn't be copied > over a file owned by an rpm' would be a good heuristic to start with. Yes. By the time you have 5.8.8 perl rpm installed, all the rpm-based modules should have been upgraded (via dependencies) from 5.8.[34]. > That seems a little bit more magic than is healthy for a %post script. > > OTOH, I'd rather not break everyone's perl modules. Sounds like a sane approach. -- Jan Pazdziora RHN Sustaining Engineering, Red Hat From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Sep 19 17:52:43 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 13:52:43 -0400 Subject: [Bug 207049] all mail is being marked as spam even if the score doesn't make it spam In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200609191752.k8JHqh5s006799@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: all mail is being marked as spam even if the score doesn't make it spam https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207049 ------- Additional Comments From davej at redhat.com 2006-09-19 13:52 EST ------- Hmm. I saved one of the affected mails, stripped out the spamassassin headers, and fed it to spamassassin -D. It marked it as ham. X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham version=3.1.4 Very strange. It's running the same version of spamassassin as it was yesterday, with the same config files. Very puzzling. UNPARSABLE_RELAY was set to 3 in my local config as part of some test I was doing a while ago, that I forgot to remove. I've removed it now. Something that's really baking my noodle -- Since I filed this bug, it hasn't reproduced itself. My spamfolder now only contains spam again. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Sep 19 18:03:23 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 14:03:23 -0400 Subject: [Bug 207049] all mail is being marked as spam even if the score doesn't make it spam In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200609191803.k8JI3NUn007933@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: all mail is being marked as spam even if the score doesn't make it spam https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207049 ------- Additional Comments From felicity at kluge.net 2006-09-19 14:03 EST ------- You haven't actually mentioned how you're calling SA. Are you using spamc/spamd, spamassassin, or a third-party milter/daemon/etc ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Sep 19 21:00:02 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 17:00:02 -0400 Subject: [Bug 207049] all mail is being marked as spam even if the score doesn't make it spam In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200609192100.k8JL02YH026075@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: all mail is being marked as spam even if the score doesn't make it spam https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207049 ------- Additional Comments From davej at redhat.com 2006-09-19 16:59 EST ------- Sorry about that. I have spamd running as a daemon, with spamc being triggered from .procmailrc -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Sep 20 01:15:54 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:15:54 -0400 Subject: [Bug 204800] perl.prov script misparses some version information In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200609200115.k8K1FseT011391@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: perl.prov script misparses some version information https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204800 cweyl at alumni.drew.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-perl-devel- | |list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From rnorwood at redhat.com Wed Sep 20 02:33:51 2006 From: rnorwood at redhat.com (Robin Norwood) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 22:33:51 -0400 Subject: A couple of requests for FC-6 In-Reply-To: <450D6DED.9090009@di.uminho.pt> (Jose Pedro Oliveira's message of "Sun, 17 Sep 2006 16:46:53 +0100") References: <450D6DED.9090009@di.uminho.pt> Message-ID: Jose, I've looked over the changes for the various packages listed below, and I don't think any of them will pass muster from the release team for inclusion in fc6 post test3. If you disagree, let me know and I'll take another look. I'll look at getting the updated packages and the path issue sorted out next week - I'm on vacation this week, and internet access is spotty at best. Thanks, -RN Jose Pedro Oliveira writes: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Robin, > > It would be nice to have the following topics taken care before > the FC-6 final release: > > > 1. Rawhide: perl packages to update > ====================================================================== > > Fedora Core Development CPAN > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Archive-Tar-1.29 (Archive-Tar-1.30.tar.gz) > DBD-MySQL-3.0006 (DBD-mysql-3.0007.tar.gz) > Devel-Symdump-2.0601 (Devel-Symdump-2.0602.tar.gz) > IO-Socket-SSL-0.998 (IO-Socket-SSL-1.01.tar.gz) > PDL-2.4.2 (PDL-2.4.3.tar.gz) > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Note: > There is already a bugzilla ticket opened requesting the > IO::Socket::SSL update (bugzilla ticket 206782). > > > 2. Rawhide perl package: drop directory support for perl 5.8.3 and 5.84 > ====================================================================== > > Removing support for perl 5.8.3 and perl 5.8.4 reduces the number > of directories in the perl search path (@INC), which improves the > perl modules loading time. > > This has already been done in past for FC-4 where support for > perl 5.8.0/5.8.1/5.8.2 has dropped. > > perl specfile patch: > -------------------- > --- perl.spec.588_8 2006-07-14 22:22:06.000000000 +0100 > +++ perl.spec 2006-09-17 16:10:58.000000000 +0100 > @@ -26,9 +26,7 @@ > Provides: perl(:WITHOUT_THREADS) > %endif > > -%define perlmodcompat 5.8.7 5.8.6 5.8.5 5.8.4 5.8.3 > -Provides: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.3) > -Provides: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.4) > +%define perlmodcompat 5.8.7 5.8.6 5.8.5 > Provides: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.5) > Provides: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.6) > Provides: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.7) > -------------------- > > Note: > The FC-4 change was reported in the Release Notes. > > > > 3. Rawhide perl-LDAP: enable LDAPS support > ====================================================================== > > Now that perl-IO-Socket-SSL and perl-Net-SSLeay are core packages > it would be great to have the package perl-LDAP pulling in > perl-IO-Socket-SSL automatically. > > More information available in the following bugzilla ticket: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=122066 > > > > Regards, > jpo > - -- > Jos? Pedro Oliveira > * mailto: jpo at di.uminho.pt * http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo * > * gpg fingerprint = F9B6 8D87 859D 1C94 48F0 84C0 9749 9EB5 91BD 851B * > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFFDW3tl0metZG9hRsRAlvGAJ9vLVOt15Hle6K8wrQtjSKna0rBEQCeMRIZ > 6nKCeV5G//YDcOI6w5lI620= > =3Su8 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Robin Norwood Red Hat, Inc. "The Sage does nothing, yet nothing remains undone." -Lao Tzu, Te Tao Ching From steve at silug.org Wed Sep 20 21:28:49 2006 From: steve at silug.org (Steven Pritchard) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:28:49 -0500 Subject: A couple of requests for FC-6 In-Reply-To: References: <450D6DED.9090009@di.uminho.pt> Message-ID: <20060920212849.GA26858@osiris.silug.org> On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 10:33:51PM -0400, Robin Norwood wrote: > I've looked over the changes for the various packages listed below, and > I don't think any of them will pass muster from the release team for > inclusion in fc6 post test3. If you disagree, let me know and I'll take > another look. This one will fix an *old* bug: > > 3. Rawhide perl-LDAP: enable LDAPS support > > ====================================================================== > > > > Now that perl-IO-Socket-SSL and perl-Net-SSLeay are core packages > > it would be great to have the package perl-LDAP pulling in > > perl-IO-Socket-SSL automatically. > > > > More information available in the following bugzilla ticket: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=122066 Fixing it would just be a matter of adding "Requires: perl(IO::Socket::SSL)" to the spec. (Actually it would just be a matter of uncommenting the line in the spec that's already there.) Steve -- Steven Pritchard - K&S Pritchard Enterprises, Inc. Email: steve at kspei.com http://www.kspei.com/ Phone: (618)398-3000 Mobile: (618)567-7320 From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 21 01:29:06 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:29:06 -0400 Subject: [Bug 207430] New: perl-LDAP should require perl(IO::Socket::SSL) Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207430 Summary: perl-LDAP should require perl(IO::Socket::SSL) Product: Fedora Core Version: fc6test3 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: perl-LDAP AssignedTo: rnorwood at redhat.com ReportedBy: rnorwood at redhat.com CC: fedora-perl-devel-list at redhat.com perl-LDAP needs perl(IO::Socket::SSL) for some functions - for example: Right now trying to use smbldap-tools results in this error: Can't locate IO/Socket/SSL.pm in @INC (@INC contains: /usr/sbin/ (etc...) See bug #122066, specifically comment #10 for more info. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 21 10:32:08 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 06:32:08 -0400 Subject: [Bug 207430] perl-LDAP should require perl(IO::Socket::SSL) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200609211032.k8LAW8Ek031835@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: perl-LDAP should require perl(IO::Socket::SSL) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207430 ------- Additional Comments From jpo at di.uminho.pt 2006-09-21 06:32 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=136839) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=136839&action=view) Enables LDAPS Changelog * Adds perl(IO::Socket::SSL) to the build requirements list * Adds perl(IO::Socket::SSL) to the requirements list * Clears the lib/Net/LDAP/DSML.pm executable permission * Corrects the last changelog entry * A couple of other minor changes -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 21 12:34:39 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 08:34:39 -0400 Subject: [Bug 184530] Review Request: perl-RPM2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200609211234.k8LCYd82008491@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-RPM2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184530 jpo at di.uminho.pt changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|jpo at di.uminho.pt |fedora-perl-devel- | |list at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From jpo at di.uminho.pt 2006-09-21 08:34 EST ------- CC += fedora-perl-devel-list at redhat.com * I believe Jason is no longer around; maybe Robin Norwood could take over this and try to contact the Red Hat Legal Department * The core perl-RPM-Specfile package has the same problem: - same author (Chip Turner) - same initial packager (Chip Turner) - it doesn't contain any copyright information (http://search.cpan.org/dist/RPM-Specfile/) - the specfile states the license is "GPL or Artistic" $ rpm -qp --qf="%{license}\n" perl-RPM-Specfile-1.19-2.1.1.src.rpm GPL or Artistic * The upstream RPM package started including the perl RPM[2] module as of 4.4.3. It now generates a rpm-perl subpackage (http://wraptastic.org/pub/rpm-4.4.x/) $ rpm -qpl rpm-perl-4.4.3-1.i386.rpm /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.7/i386-linux-thread-multi/RPM2.pm /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.7/i386-linux-thread-multi/auto/RPM2 /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.7/i386-linux-thread-multi/auto/RPM2/RPM2.so /usr/share/man/man3/RPM2.3pm.gz $ rpm -qpl rpm-perl-4.4.6-1.i386.rpm /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/RPM.pm /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/auto/RPM /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/auto/RPM/RPM.so /usr/share/man/man3/RPM.3pm.gz Note: the rpm maintainer has renamed the perl module (RPM2 -> RPM) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 22 02:18:27 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 22:18:27 -0400 Subject: [Bug 172336] getgrnam() crashes with "Out of memory" if /etc/group contains long lines In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200609220218.k8M2IRs8012733@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: getgrnam() crashes with "Out of memory" if /etc/group contains long lines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=172336 bugzilla at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|security |normal Keywords| |Security notting at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE Fixed In Version| |FC5 ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2006-09-21 22:18 EST ------- Closing bugs in MODIFIED state from prior Fedora releases. If this bug persists in a current Fedora release (such as Fedora Core 5 or later), please reopen and set the version appropriately. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 22 02:19:43 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 22:19:43 -0400 Subject: [Bug 174684] CVE-2005-3962 Perl integer overflow issue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200609220219.k8M2Jhmp012899@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: CVE-2005-3962 Perl integer overflow issue https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174684 bugzilla at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|security |normal Keywords| |Security notting at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE Fixed In Version| |FC5 ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2006-09-21 22:19 EST ------- Closing bugs in MODIFIED state from prior Fedora releases. If this bug persists in a current Fedora release (such as Fedora Core 5 or later), please reopen and set the version appropriately. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 22 02:20:00 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 22:20:00 -0400 Subject: [Bug 185242] ioctl default minimum argument length of 256 should be restored In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200609220220.k8M2K0Bj012955@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: ioctl default minimum argument length of 256 should be restored https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185242 notting at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE Fixed In Version| |FC5 Bug 185242 depends on bug 185240, which changed state. Bug 185240 Summary: ioctl default minimum argument length of 256 should be restored https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185240 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA Status|ON_QA |VERIFIED Status|VERIFIED |RELEASE_PENDING Resolution| |ERRATA Status|RELEASE_PENDING |CLOSED ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2006-09-21 22:19 EST ------- Closing bugs in MODIFIED state from prior Fedora releases. If this bug persists in a current Fedora release (such as Fedora Core 5 or later), please reopen and set the version appropriately. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From cweyl at alumni.drew.edu Fri Sep 22 03:37:26 2006 From: cweyl at alumni.drew.edu (Chris Weyl) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 20:37:26 -0700 Subject: recently orphaned perl modules.... Message-ID: <7dd7ab490609212037y5d3f8924pa0c9fac6fccfe6b1@mail.gmail.com> Hey all -- As the perl/extras SIG, do we want to have a process in place to pick up orphaned perl modules? That is, there are a number of modules that have been orphaned as part of the recent extras mass-rebuild effort... Rather than let them be removed for FC-6, I think there are benefits to our taking them over. But, if we decide this is a good idea, there are process questions here. Plan A: * SIG member announces intention to do a SIG takeover on this list * announce SIG takeover of orphan per usual process a day later * edit owners.list: list email as owner, actual person doing the taking as cc Plan B: ...erm. Someone else gets to suggest this :) Good idea? Bad? Yes? No? -Chris -- Chris Weyl Ex astris, scientia From jpazdziora at redhat.com Fri Sep 22 06:32:52 2006 From: jpazdziora at redhat.com (Jan Pazdziora) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 08:32:52 +0200 Subject: A couple of requests for FC-6 In-Reply-To: <20060920212849.GA26858@osiris.silug.org> References: <450D6DED.9090009@di.uminho.pt> <20060920212849.GA26858@osiris.silug.org> Message-ID: <20060922063252.GB29855@ditustat.redhat.usu> On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 04:28:49PM -0500, Steven Pritchard wrote: > > > > > > More information available in the following bugzilla ticket: > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=122066 > > Fixing it would just be a matter of adding "Requires: > perl(IO::Socket::SSL)" to the spec. (Actually it would just be a > matter of uncommenting the line in the spec that's already there.) Looking at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=122066#c10 It really seems like perl-LDAP should have a hard dependency on perl(IO::Socket::SSL). Right now trying to use smbldap-tools results in this error: Can't locate IO/Socket/SSL.pm in @INC (@INC contains: /usr/sbin/ /usr/lib64/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib64/perl5/site_perl/5.8.7/x86_64-linux-thread-multi [...] shouldn't the dependency be in smbldap-tools instead? The perl-LDAP does not require IO::Socket::SSL, strictly speaking. -- Jan Pazdziora RHN Sustaining Engineering, Red Hat From steve at silug.org Fri Sep 22 22:22:56 2006 From: steve at silug.org (Steven Pritchard) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 17:22:56 -0500 Subject: A couple of requests for FC-6 In-Reply-To: <20060922063252.GB29855@ditustat.redhat.usu> References: <450D6DED.9090009@di.uminho.pt> <20060920212849.GA26858@osiris.silug.org> <20060922063252.GB29855@ditustat.redhat.usu> Message-ID: <20060922222256.GA931@osiris.silug.org> On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 08:32:52AM +0200, Jan Pazdziora wrote: > shouldn't the dependency be in smbldap-tools instead? The perl-LDAP > does not require IO::Socket::SSL, strictly speaking. That message isn't coming (directly) from anything in smbldap-tools. Those scripts only call the LDAP module. Note how the LDAP module *blows up* when IO::Socket::SSL isn't installed. If the call to IO::Socket::SSL was wrapped in an eval {} and the error was handled properly, I'd agree that the dependency was optional. Right now it is not. Besides, LDAP without TLS is pretty worthless. Steve -- Steven Pritchard - K&S Pritchard Enterprises, Inc. Email: steve at kspei.com http://www.kspei.com/ Phone: (618)398-3000 Mobile: (618)567-7320 From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Sep 24 10:35:09 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 06:35:09 -0400 Subject: [Bug 207838] New: Perl getsockopt() on SCTP sockets doesn't work Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207838 Summary: Perl getsockopt() on SCTP sockets doesn't work Product: Fedora Core Version: fc5 Platform: x86_64 OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: perl AssignedTo: rnorwood at redhat.com ReportedBy: pablo_p at op.pl QAContact: dkl at redhat.com CC: fedora-perl-devel-list at redhat.com Description of problem: Perl getsockopt() on SCTP socket does not work. Following perl code: ------------------------------------------ use strict; use IO::Socket; ## create sctp socket my $sock = new IO::Socket::INET( Proto => 132, Type => SOCK_STREAM ) or die "Cannot create sctp socket"; ## read rto data my $i = getsockopt($sock, 132, 1); #print rto data print join("\n", unpack("I i*", $i)); ------------------------------------------ Works on Solaris10, but not on (my) Linux. I checked C getsockopt, and code like this: ret = getsockopt(sock , SOL_SCTP, SCTP_RTOINFO, &sctp_info, &len); works OK only if len is initially set to sizeof(struct sctp_rtoinfo), which is not what manual says: ------------------------------------------- > man getsockopt ... The parameters optval and optlen are used to access option values for setsockopt(). For getsockopt() they identify a buffer in which the value for the requested option(s) are to be returned. For getsock- opt(), optlen is a value-result parameter, initially containing the size of the buffer pointed to by optval, and modified on return to indicate the actual size of the value returned. If no option value is to be supplied or returned, optval may be NULL. ... ------------------------------------------- Above applies to all SCTP structures available via get/setsockopt. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): perl-5.8.8-5 glibc-2.4-11 kernel-2.6.17-1.2187_FC5 How reproducible: every time Steps to Reproduce: 1. run perl code from description 2. nothing is displayed Actual results: nothing is displayed Expected results: sctp socket rto into (4 parameters) Additional info: SELinux is disabled. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Sep 24 16:00:53 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 12:00:53 -0400 Subject: [Bug 207430] perl-LDAP should require perl(IO::Socket::SSL) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200609241600.k8OG0rMM027406@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: perl-LDAP should require perl(IO::Socket::SSL) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207430 ------- Additional Comments From rnorwood at redhat.com 2006-09-24 12:00 EST ------- Thanks for the patch, Jose! I'll see about rolling it out tomorrow when I'm in the office. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Sep 24 16:17:23 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 12:17:23 -0400 Subject: [Bug 184530] Review Request: perl-RPM2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200609241617.k8OGHN17028171@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-RPM2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184530 ------- Additional Comments From rnorwood at redhat.com 2006-09-24 12:17 EST ------- I can contact Chip to clarify the license. Since FC5 and FC6 both still seem to have rpm-4.4.2, I assume we still want to get this into extras, yes? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Sep 24 17:14:06 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 13:14:06 -0400 Subject: [Bug 184530] Review Request: perl-RPM2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200609241714.k8OHE6h0031983@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-RPM2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184530 ------- Additional Comments From cturner at pattern.net 2006-09-24 13:13 EST ------- I wrote this and RPM::Specfile while at red hat. The license is the same as perl itself: Perl5 is Copyright (C) 1993-2005, by Larry Wall and others. It is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of either: a) the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 1, or (at your option) any later version, or b) the "Artistic License". from: http://dev.perl.org/licenses/ A lawyer or two from RH contacted me and I've told them the above on a few occasions. I'll look into making new CPAN releases of these modules with a clear license as well. HTH -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Sep 24 22:20:51 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 18:20:51 -0400 Subject: [Bug 184530] Review Request: perl-RPM2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200609242220.k8OMKpKU008534@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-RPM2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184530 ------- Additional Comments From rnorwood at redhat.com 2006-09-24 18:20 EST ------- And I didn't even have to say his name three times! Paul, is the above sufficient, or do you need to wait for the new CPAN release? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Sep 25 06:59:11 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 02:59:11 -0400 Subject: [Bug 184530] Review Request: perl-RPM2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200609250659.k8P6xBnW026877@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-RPM2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184530 paul at city-fan.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org 2006-09-25 02:58 EST ------- I'm happy to approve this now, but is Jason still around to maintain it? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Sep 25 16:30:53 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 12:30:53 -0400 Subject: [Bug 184530] Review Request: perl-RPM2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200609251630.k8PGUrhX008940@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-RPM2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184530 ------- Additional Comments From rnorwood at redhat.com 2006-09-25 12:30 EST ------- No, he isn't. I'm maintaining most of the perl* packages for FC and RHEL, so I could take it if no-one else wants it. I'll send a quick mail to fedora-perl-devel to see if anyone else wants it first, though. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From rnorwood at redhat.com Mon Sep 25 16:32:41 2006 From: rnorwood at redhat.com (Robin Norwood) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 12:32:41 -0400 Subject: Would anyone like to maintain perl-RPM2 in Extras? Message-ID: Hi, perl-RPM2 has been approved for inclusion in Extras, but it needs a maintainer: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184530 I'll take it if no-one else does. -RN -- Robin Norwood Red Hat, Inc. "The Sage does nothing, yet nothing remains undone." -Lao Tzu, Te Tao Ching From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Sep 27 20:17:57 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:17:57 -0400 Subject: [Bug 208315] New: Inconsistent handling of reverse IP lookup fixed in Net::DNS 0.59 Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208315 Summary: Inconsistent handling of reverse IP lookup fixed in Net::DNS 0.59 Product: Fedora Core Version: test3 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: perl-Net-DNS AssignedTo: rnorwood at redhat.com ReportedBy: rwfranks at acm.org CC: fedora-perl-devel-list at redhat.com Description of problem: Perl-Net-DNS-0.58 resolver search(), query(), bgsend() and send() methods not consistent in interpreting IPv4 and IPv6 addresses as a PTR query. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 0.58 Additional info: Since FC6-test3 went to press, Net::DNS 0.59 has been released. I realise that final release deadline is uncomfortably close, but think that the revised module fixes enough inconsistent and outright wrong behaviour to be well worth getting into FC6 if this is still possible. The CPAN bug references are: #20857 Resolver query() treats empty or undef name as default domain. #20994 Resolver search() erroneously applies search list to IPv6 address. #21402 Unable to prebuild PTR query from IP using Net::DNS:Packet->new(). The search() query() send() bgsend() and Packet->new() methods are now 100% consistent in the form of argument they accept. The inconsistency was reported in CPAN bug #20836 (later merged with #21402) I can confirm that revised module has been tested using FC5. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 28 02:52:25 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 22:52:25 -0400 Subject: [Bug 208315] Inconsistent handling of reverse IP lookup fixed in Net::DNS 0.59 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200609280252.k8S2qPsV031948@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Inconsistent handling of reverse IP lookup fixed in Net::DNS 0.59 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208315 ------- Additional Comments From rnorwood at redhat.com 2006-09-27 22:52 EST ------- I've built 0.59 as 'testing' for FC5 - I'm getting an odd error with the FC6 version that I'll investigate more in the morning. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Sep 28 16:16:02 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:16:02 -0400 Subject: [Bug 208315] Inconsistent handling of reverse IP lookup fixed in Net::DNS 0.59 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200609281616.k8SGG2xj021900@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Inconsistent handling of reverse IP lookup fixed in Net::DNS 0.59 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208315 ------- Additional Comments From rnorwood at redhat.com 2006-09-28 12:15 EST ------- The FC6 error was my mistake - built for fc6 as well, and I've requested that the fedora release team push this as an update to fc6. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 29 09:12:21 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 05:12:21 -0400 Subject: [Bug 208535] New: perl-Net-DNS package in FC6 is older than in FC5 updates Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208535 Summary: perl-Net-DNS package in FC6 is older than in FC5 updates Product: Fedora Core Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: perl-Net-DNS AssignedTo: rnorwood at redhat.com ReportedBy: matthias at rpmforge.net CC: fedora-perl-devel-list at redhat.com,jkeating at redhat.com >From the automated check script : perl-Net-DNS FC5-updates > FC6 (0:0.59-1.fc5 > 0:0.58-1.fc6) So please update the FC6 package and make sure it gets in before FC6 final, otherwise the module might break for upgrades from FC5 to FC6. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 29 09:13:25 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 05:13:25 -0400 Subject: [Bug 150224] FC6 Blocker Tracker In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200609290913.k8T9DPeU027854@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: FC6 Blocker Tracker Alias: FC6Blocker https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=150224 matthias at rpmforge.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |208535 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 29 19:29:03 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 15:29:03 -0400 Subject: [Bug 208633] New: Update request for perl-DBD-MySQL Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208633 Summary: Update request for perl-DBD-MySQL Product: Fedora Core Version: fc6test3 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: perl-DBD-MySQL AssignedTo: rnorwood at redhat.com ReportedBy: rnorwood at redhat.com CC: fedora-perl-devel-list at redhat.com Jose requested an update of this package to version 3.0007 "It would make our life easier in Fedora Extras (sooner or later one of the 450+ perl modules that we maintain over there will require the latest version of the above modules)." This version is already available as an update in FC5, and there have been no complaints. The changelog: http://search.cpan.org/src/CAPTTOFU/DBD-mysql-3.0007/ChangeLog -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 29 20:30:36 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:30:36 -0400 Subject: [Bug 208639] New: Update request for perl-Archive-Tar Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208639 Summary: Update request for perl-Archive-Tar Product: Fedora Core Version: fc6test3 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: perl-Archive-Tar AssignedTo: rnorwood at redhat.com ReportedBy: rnorwood at redhat.com CC: fedora-perl-devel-list at redhat.com Jose requested an update of this package to version 1.30 "It would make our life easier in Fedora Extras (sooner or later one of the 450+ perl modules that we maintain over there will require the latest version of the above modules)." Changelog: http://search.cpan.org/src/KANE/Archive-Tar-1.30/CHANGES -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 29 21:01:12 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 17:01:12 -0400 Subject: [Bug 208639] Update request for perl-Archive-Tar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200609292101.k8TL1CSr024661@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Update request for perl-Archive-Tar https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208639 rnorwood at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED CC| |jpo at di.uminho.pt ------- Additional Comments From rnorwood at redhat.com 2006-09-29 17:01 EST ------- Package built and update request sent to fedora rel-eng. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Sep 29 21:01:25 2006 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 17:01:25 -0400 Subject: [Bug 208633] Update request for perl-DBD-MySQL In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200609292101.k8TL1PCP024703@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Update request for perl-DBD-MySQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208633 rnorwood at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED ------- Additional Comments From rnorwood at redhat.com 2006-09-29 17:01 EST ------- Package built and request sent to fedora rel-eng. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.