Bug 2374088

Summary: Add perl-Crypt-SmbHash to EPEL 9
Product: [Fedora] Fedora EPEL Reporter: redadmin-k <akito5623>
Component: perl-Crypt-SmbHashAssignee: Paul Howarth <paul>
Status: NEW --- QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: epel9CC: paul, perl-devel, ppisar
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: ---
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Attachments:
Description Flags
perl-Crypt-SmbHash – Perl module to create SMB password hashes none

Description redadmin-k 2025-06-20 18:23:55 UTC
Created attachment 2094519 [details]
perl-Crypt-SmbHash – Perl module to create SMB password hashes

This module is required by smbldap-tools, which I am also planning to submit to EPEL 9.

It provides the Crypt::SmbHash Perl module, originally from CPAN.

The .spec file and .src.rpm are attached to this ticket.

Comment 1 redadmin-k 2025-06-20 18:35:27 UTC
his package was previously available in Fedora 34 and is now being revived specifically for EPEL 9. It is a required dependency for smbldap-tools.

The SPEC has been adapted accordingly for EPEL and should not be confused with a Rawhide submission.

Comment 2 Petr Pisar 2025-06-23 07:53:06 UTC
(In reply to redadmin-k from comment #1)
> his package was previously available in Fedora 34
> and is now being revived specifically for EPEL 9.

This package exists in Fedora 43 <https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=2857>.
That means there is nothing to "revive".

> The SPEC has been adapted accordingly for EPEL and should not be confused
> with a Rawhide submission.

So you mean adding this package to EPEL 9.

Comment 3 redadmin-k 2025-06-23 07:58:45 UTC
Thank you for your clarification and review. I understand that this package already exists in Fedora and does not need to be added to EPEL. I appreciate your time and explanation.

Comment 4 Paul Howarth 2025-06-23 10:47:32 UTC
The package existing in Fedora does not mean it does not need to be added to EPEL (if it is needed there). It means that the package is already maintained by somebody (which in this case would be me). The proper process for adding it to EPEL would be to request an EPEL branch for the package, as per the documentation at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-package-request/

Comment 5 redadmin-k 2025-06-23 11:09:45 UTC
Thank you very much for your guidance.
I apologize for my lack of understanding regarding the proper procedure.
I appreciate your clarification and will follow the documented process to request the EPEL branch as instructed.