Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 476500
Last modified: 2009-03-31 14:20:52 EDT
Description of problem:
Package perl-RPM-Specfile has branches for RHEL and is built for this release as well:
But is not included in RHEL release (neither 5Server nor 5Client nor 4AS).
Can you please either cancel those rhel branches so the package can be build in epel. Or you can fix the composes and include the package in RHEL release?
I wonder how urgently we need that package (for Spacewalk). It seems it is only used by the /usr/bin/satcon-make-rpm.pl script in perl-Satcon and even there, plain printing to the output .spec file should work just fine.
Have you decided if you need this package or not? Also, do the internal RHEL-4 and RHEL-5 branches actually preclude EPEL inclusion?
Yes, we need need it.
After quick disscussion with perl-RPM-Specfile (firstname.lastname@example.org) we come to conclusion that this package should be in both RHEL 4 and RHEL 5. Can you put it to composes and include the package in RHEL release?
I would like to see it in RHEL since we need it for RHN Satellite. And the presence of RHEL branch and not availability in RHEL cause us problem.
Raising the priority.
We don't need this. The only place where we use the thing is satcon-make-rpm.pl in perl-Satcon, and that can easily be rewritten by not using the RPM::Specfile module at all.
Plus, if the package is suddenly in RHEL, and we still ship it with RHN Satellite (the package will still be on already-released ISOs), we might be for a version conflict.
The correct solution is to rewrite perl-Satcon not to use RPM::Specfile.
Hmmm. The script satcon-make-rpm.pl is not used anywhere in Satellite, and as a matter of fact, it is no longer shipped in perl-Satcon (I removed it from its .spec file).
So it's like -2.
It was decided this package won't be needed in RHEL. This will be created in EPEL.
Could you remove those branches in RHEL, if it's needed for branching in EPEL?
Removing the branches in RHEL won't be necessary for building in EPEL. Feel free to proceed with the EPEL inclusion.
Dennis, I believe we don't really need nor want that package in EPEL, at this point anyway.
This bugzilla can be closed.
Sorry for the confusion.