http://www.libssh2.org/mail/libssh2-devel-archive-2010-02/0024.shtml
1.2.4 is out! http://www.libssh2.org/mail/libssh2-devel-archive-2010-02/0054.shtml
Excellent. Soon appearing in devel -> F-11...
Not so excellent since you broke F-11 installations per yum update. Dont' you see the bug was open against rawhide? Any reason to break ABI on F-11 and kill yum in the stable release, so late in its life-cycle? Chris, you should read the Package update guidelines first before doing silly things again: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Package_update_guidelines Thanks in advance!
bug #525002 comment #15
"[B]roke F-11 installations per yum update"... What do you mean? The bug you cited seems to talk about libssh-1.2 and going from F-11 to F-12; in any case that sounds more like an issue with the package owning libcurl not indicating it needed to have libssl2 updated. James' last comment over there seems to indicate that he has some sort of unsupported configuration going on (F-12+ yum on F-11 is just begging for trouble.) And, as I trust you know, the 1.2.4 updates have not been pushed to stable yet, leaving us at 1.2 over there, an update you claimed that no rebuilds were necessary against. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libssh2-1.2.4-1.fc12 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libssh2-1.2.4-1.fc11 You did check those updates and file feedback there, right? Is there something I'm missing here? Because these "problems" all seem unrelated to libssh2's 1.2.4 update.
(In reply to comment #5) > "[B]roke F-11 installations per yum update"... What do you mean? The bug you Steps to reprodcue: 1. yum update curl 2. curl is broken > cited seems to talk about libssh-1.2 and going from F-11 to F-12; in any case > that sounds more like an issue with the package owning libcurl not indicating > it needed to have libssl2 updated. James' last comment over there seems to The answer is already there, now twice ;-) > indicate that he has some sort of unsupported configuration going on (F-12+ yum > on F-11 is just begging for trouble.) And, as I trust you know, the 1.2.4 Nope, the dependency is not there. So that the current F-11 setup allows to break (lib)curl for nothing. > updates have not been pushed to stable yet, leaving us at 1.2 over there, an > update you claimed that no rebuilds were necessary against. > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libssh2-1.2.4-1.fc12 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libssh2-1.2.4-1.fc11 > > You did check those updates and file feedback there, right? After my experiences with your updates, I report only _critical_ flaws in them. > Is there something I'm missing here? Because these "problems" all seem > unrelated to libssh2's 1.2.4 update. Yes, you missed my question. What was the purpose of the libssh2 rebase in F-11? Where did you discuss it?
(In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > "[B]roke F-11 installations per yum update"... What do you mean? The bug you > > Steps to reprodcue: > 1. yum update curl > 2. curl is broken libcurl breaking due to a known issue with its rpm metadata that you chose not to address in F-12 is not a libssh2 issue. > Nope, the dependency is not there. So that the current F-11 setup allows to > break (lib)curl for nothing. Again, if libcurl breaks because it fails to have the metadata rpm needs to know it needs to be updated, that's a libcurl bug. > > updates have not been pushed to stable yet, leaving us at 1.2 over there, an > > update you claimed that no rebuilds were necessary against. > > > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libssh2-1.2.4-1.fc12 > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libssh2-1.2.4-1.fc11 > > > > You did check those updates and file feedback there, right? > > After my experiences with your updates, I report only _critical_ flaws in them. So, that's a "no" then. Have you found _any_ actual, technical flaws in the pending 1.2.4 updates? > > Is there something I'm missing here? Because these "problems" all seem > > unrelated to libssh2's 1.2.4 update. > > Yes, you missed my question. What was the purpose of the libssh2 rebase in > F-11? Where did you discuss it? It wasn't a 'rebase", it was a minor version update that if libcurl had contained the correct metadata would have no impact. And you seem to still be missing that bug 525002 is talking about libssh2-1.2, NOT the 1.2.4 updates pending. So... Please stop asking me to do "stupid" or "silly" things, especially when the things you cite make little sense when looked at. This, and your attitude, make it very difficult to take you seriously and work with you, something I'm trying very hard to do at the moment.
(In reply to comment #7) > libcurl breaking due to a known issue with its rpm metadata that you chose not > to address in F-12 is not a libssh2 issue. Now you're completely wrong. Explicit (build)requires are not recommended when they are not necessary. As well as rebases in the stable release. You should read the guidance first. > It wasn't a 'rebase", it was a minor version update that if libcurl had > contained the correct metadata would have no impact. Wrt. which guidance do you think the metadata is incorrect? > So... Please stop asking me to do "stupid" or "silly" things, especially when > the things you cite make little sense when looked at. This, and your attitude, > make it very difficult to take you seriously and work with you, something I'm > trying very hard to do at the moment. "working with you" has already taken me a lot of time. I am a developer and need time to write code, instead of discussing a nonsense like this ;-)
(In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #7) > > So... Please stop asking me to do "stupid" or "silly" things, especially when > > the things you cite make little sense when looked at. This, and your attitude, > > make it very difficult to take you seriously and work with you, something I'm > > trying very hard to do at the moment. > > "working with you" has already taken me a lot of time. I am a developer and > need time to write code, instead of discussing a nonsense like this ;-) Well, I'll make it easy for you. For technical issues with libssh2 updates, please file comments/feedback in bodhi with appropriate karma. For bugs/etc, be aware that you should file them specifically for technical issues, one issue per bug, and keep to just the issue at hand; if they're not compelling and technical in nature I will most likely close them "NOTABUG". Any extraneous comments, topics, etc, in bugs -- particularly closed ones -- I will ignore. Don't send me email; I won't read it. Hopefully these will enable both of us to get on with important things, instead of discussing "nonsense".
(In reply to comment #9) > Well, I'll make it easy for you. Then please grant me the CVS access for libssh2. > Any extraneous comments, topics, etc, in bugs -- particularly closed ones -- I > will ignore. Don't send me email; I won't read it. Sure, you have successfully ignored all of my mails sent for the last 6 months. You should know that your "work" is causing me problems ... and also causes problems to Fedora users in the first place.