Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Latest Fedora delivers 3.6 version. Upstream has version 3.8 in the CVS, but has not yet released. But he's already released Perl binding <http://search.cpan.org/dist/Compress-LZF/> that bundles the 3.8 sources. I'm trying to upgrade the perl-Compress-LZF from 3.6 to 3.8 (bug #1237116), thus I'd like to see liblzf-3.8 first in the Fedora. Could you please poke upstream to release liblzf-3.8 or upgrade the liblzf package from CVS snapshot?
http://cvs.schmorp.de/liblzf/Changes?view=markup so it's unreleased, not clear what to do. I would say don't update perl-Compress-LZF unless there is need to?
I think you could persuade liblzf upstream to release 3.8 as a standalone library. Obviously he thinks the code mature enough if he could release Perl binding for it.
I exchanged few emails with upstream and he does not want to release liblzf because he does not see a reason for it. Moreover he states, that he does not like unbundling liblzf from Perl Compress-LZF: On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 06:57:21PM +0100, Marc Lehmann wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 10:56:19AM +0100, Petr Pisar <ppisar> wrote: > > > Well, I am not in the habit of making releases for no reason. Speciifcally, > > > there should be a reason to make a release, the absence of a reason to the > > > contrary doesn't qualify - so, is there anything in the 3.8 release that you > > > need in some way? > > > > > The lzf_compress_best(). > > > > > If you could explain you reasons I could try top bump the priority, but > > > again, since this is volunteer work, I can make no guarantees, and cetrainly > > > wouldn't want to prepare a release for no reason. > > > > > The reason is sharing liblzf code among Compress-LZF and other programs that > > use liblzf. We link Compress::LZF against liblzf to have only one libzf code > > in the system. > > Since that requires larger modifications (as the standalone C lib is not > binary compatible), I think you are on your own - I don't think fedora > should ship considerably different and incompatible versions of some > library than other distributions. Certainly I wouldn't want to *help* with > that, but of course, it's free software, and you are free to do what you > want.
Just reviewed this, I don't there is any change.
We can pull a release from CVS I guess.
Reviewed no change.
No change.