|Summary:||libical-0.44 is available|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Upstream Release Monitoring <upstream-release-monitoring>|
|Component:||libical||Assignee:||Robert Scheck <redhat-bugzilla>|
|Status:||CLOSED ERRATA||QA Contact:||Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>|
|Version:||rawhide||CC:||debarshir, rdieter, redhat-bugzilla, vanmeeuwen+fedora|
|Fixed In Version:||libical-0.46-2.fc14||Doc Type:||Enhancement|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2011-01-06 16:59:38 UTC||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
Description Upstream Release Monitoring 2009-09-27 10:47:32 UTC
Latest upstream release: 0.44 Current version in Fedora Rawhide: 0.43 URL: https://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=16077&package_id=64368 Please consult the package update guidelines before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_guidelines More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_Release_Monitoring
Comment 1 Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala 2010-01-20 07:25:42 UTC
I have back ported the patches from 0.43 into 0.44 looks like some of the changes in the patches were absorbed upstream. The new patches and the srpm is at: http://huzaifas.fedorapeople.org/libical/ I also did a scratch build at: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1933305
Comment 2 Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala 2010-01-20 07:27:27 UTC
(In reply to comment #1) > I have back ported the patches from 0.43 into 0.44 This should have been ported rather than "back ported"
Comment 3 Robert Scheck 2010-02-27 13:19:44 UTC
I'm wondering whether we actually maybe need this patch as well: http://developer.zarafa.com/download/libical-configure-undef-fatal-errors.diff Zarafa tells that it would be usefull, but I think, I'm lacking the C knowledge to say definately whether it is usefull and should be applied: http://www.zarafa.com/wiki/index.php/Compiling_source_code#6.30_specific_dependancy Debarshi or Huzaifa, are you able to investigate there a bit?
Comment 4 Robert Scheck 2010-03-28 14:09:31 UTC
Ping? Debarshi or Huzaifa - somebody still alive?
Comment 5 Fedora Admin XMLRPC Client 2010-12-03 11:44:31 UTC
This package has changed ownership in the Fedora Package Database. Reassigning to the new owner of this component.
Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2010-12-19 22:14:45 UTC
libical-0.46-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libical-0.46-2.fc14
Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2010-12-19 22:14:51 UTC
libical-0.46-2.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libical-0.46-2.fc13
Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2010-12-19 22:14:59 UTC
libical-0.46-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libical-0.46-2.el5
Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2010-12-19 22:15:01 UTC
libical-0.46-2.el4 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 4. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libical-0.46-2.el4
Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2010-12-20 17:28:36 UTC
libical-0.46-2.el4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 4 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update libical'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libical-0.46-2.el4
Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2011-01-06 16:59:14 UTC
libical-0.46-2.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2011-01-06 16:59:59 UTC
libical-0.46-2.el4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 4 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2011-01-06 19:28:35 UTC
libical-0.46-2.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.