-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hi, I have this bz open for some time now, with no response. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=544944
Can some one with proven packager access bump the EL-5 version to the latest one in devel.
Thanks.
- -- Regards, Huzaifa Sidhpurwala, RHCE, CCNA (IRC: huzaifas)
GnuPG Fingerprint: 3A0F DAFB 9279 02ED 273B FFE9 CC70 DCF2 DA5B DAE5
On Wed, 2009-12-30 at 08:55 +0530, Huzaifa Sidhpurwala wrote:
Hi, I have this bz open for some time now, with no response. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=544944
Can some one with proven packager access bump the EL-5 version to the latest one in devel.
Even though any proven packager could do the change, that bug does not fall in the items listed in the proven packager policy [1]. You haven't listed any problems with the current package, you're just requesting a version upgrade.
Version upgrades should be performed by the package maintainer. This especially holds in EPEL, which should be a slowly moving distribution.
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Who_is_allowed_to_modify_which_packages
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Jussi Lehtola wrote:
On Wed, 2009-12-30 at 08:55 +0530, Huzaifa Sidhpurwala wrote:
Hi, I have this bz open for some time now, with no response. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=544944
Can some one with proven packager access bump the EL-5 version to the latest one in devel.
Even though any proven packager could do the change, that bug does not fall in the items listed in the proven packager policy [1]. You haven't listed any problems with the current package, you're just requesting a version upgrade.
The version of openvpn in EPEL is an upstream rc version. The Changelog file upstream shows a lot of bugs have been fixed and it would be nice to have it fixed in EPEL too.
Version upgrades should be performed by the package maintainer. This especially holds in EPEL, which should be a slowly moving distribution.
In this case the bz is around 2.5 weeks old, with absolutely no response. What is the policy to get the package updated in this case?
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Who_is_allowed_to_modify_which_packages
- -- Regards, Huzaifa Sidhpurwala, RHCE, CCNA (IRC: huzaifas)
GnuPG Fingerprint: 3A0F DAFB 9279 02ED 273B FFE9 CC70 DCF2 DA5B DAE5
On Wed, 2009-12-30 at 16:35 +0530, Huzaifa Sidhpurwala wrote:
Jussi Lehtola wrote:
Even though any proven packager could do the change, that bug does not fall in the items listed in the proven packager policy [1]. You haven't listed any problems with the current package, you're just requesting a version upgrade.
The version of openvpn in EPEL is an upstream rc version. The Changelog file upstream shows a lot of bugs have been fixed and it would be nice to have it fixed in EPEL too.
OK, that's starting to sound better.
Version upgrades should be performed by the package maintainer. This especially holds in EPEL, which should be a slowly moving distribution.
In this case the bz is around 2.5 weeks old, with absolutely no response. What is the policy to get the package updated in this case?
See the nonresponsive maintainer policy at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers
Jussi Lehtola wrote:
On Wed, 2009-12-30 at 16:35 +0530, Huzaifa Sidhpurwala wrote:
Jussi Lehtola wrote:
Even though any proven packager could do the change, that bug does not fall in the items listed in the proven packager policy [1]. You haven't listed any problems with the current package, you're just requesting a version upgrade.
The version of openvpn in EPEL is an upstream rc version. The Changelog file upstream shows a lot of bugs have been fixed and it would be nice to have it fixed in EPEL too.
OK, that's starting to sound better.
Version upgrades should be performed by the package maintainer. This especially holds in EPEL, which should be a slowly moving distribution.
In this case the bz is around 2.5 weeks old, with absolutely no response. What is the policy to get the package updated in this case?
See the nonresponsive maintainer policy at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers
Actually, FYI, I'm a provenpackager and have recently contacted the openvpn maintainer. There are quite a few open bugs, including yours, and I requested his approval to take a look at the open bugs and make changes, updates, etc, and he gave me the green light. I'll try to get to this this week.
Essentially, he's not been doing much with Fedora lately due to Real Life intervening, which I can certainly understand.
-J
Jon Ciesla wrote:
Jussi Lehtola wrote:
On Wed, 2009-12-30 at 16:35 +0530, Huzaifa Sidhpurwala wrote:
Jussi Lehtola wrote:
Even though any proven packager could do the change, that bug does not fall in the items listed in the proven packager policy [1]. You haven't listed any problems with the current package, you're just requesting a version upgrade.
The version of openvpn in EPEL is an upstream rc version. The Changelog file upstream shows a lot of bugs have been fixed and it would be nice to have it fixed in EPEL too.
OK, that's starting to sound better.
Version upgrades should be performed by the package maintainer. This especially holds in EPEL, which should be a slowly moving distribution.
In this case the bz is around 2.5 weeks old, with absolutely no response. What is the policy to get the package updated in this case?
See the nonresponsive maintainer policy at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers
Actually, FYI, I'm a provenpackager and have recently contacted the openvpn maintainer. There are quite a few open bugs, including yours, and I requested his approval to take a look at the open bugs and make changes, updates, etc, and he gave me the green light. I'll try to get to this this week.
Essentially, he's not been doing much with Fedora lately due to Real Life intervening, which I can certainly understand.
-J
An update for F-12 is on it's way to testing. I'm using it now with no issues, but I can't test the boot bug, as the machine acting as my openvpn server isn't using NetworkManager. That said, it should work. Please test and let me know if changes need to be made.
-J
devel@lists.stg.fedoraproject.org
-
Huzaifa Sidhpurwala -
Jon Ciesla -
Susi Lehtola