Would you be interested in branching/maintaining Cython for EPEL 6 (potentially EPEL4 and 5 as well)?
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 14 development cycle.
Changing version to '14'.
More information and reason for this action is here:
Given the lack of response from the rawhide owners at this point it would not be considered unreasonable for you to just request the EL branches if you're happy to maintain them.
Don't think I'd be a good maintainer for this one currently. This isn't urgent right now, so can wait a bit longer.
Created attachment 489684 [details]
Cython.spec file for EPEL4, 5 and 6.
I would also like to see an EPEL build for Cython.
I've attached a modified .spec file which really does two things.
1) Adds a python26 package to the EPEL5 builds.
2) On EPEL 4 and 5 (python < 2.6) the cygdb binary is not built so not included in the
Given the comments above I'll leave this here for a week in case there are comments and
then go ahead and request the branches.
Cython-0.14.1-3.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
Cython-0.14.1-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
Cython-0.14.1-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository.
Cython-0.14.1-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.
Cython-0.14.1-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
I see that xpra (winswitch) has made a package which has patches for epel. So now we have 3 versions (fedora, epel, and xpra).
I see the epel version has not been updated in ages.
I would be tempted to ask xpra not to distribute their own epel/fedora version, but if epel is not going to be kept up-to-date then that isn't an option.
It would not be difficult for me to incorporate the epel patches into the current fedora spec, although I'm not familiar with the build process on epel. The current fedora has added support for python3-Cython packages - I suppose this can just be ifdef'd out for epel.
What are your thoughts?