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.