PR#4: update to version 2.10.2 - rpms/jackson-bom

rpms / jackson-bom

#4 update to version 2.10.2

Merged 4 years ago by decathorpe. Opened 4 years ago by decathorpe.

Unknown source master into master

update to version 2.10.2

Fabio Valentini • 4 years ago

5cf744b

.gitignore

file modified

+2 -1

		`@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@`
		`- jackson-bom-jackson-bom-*/`
		`+ /results_*`
		`+ /jackson-bom-jackson-bom-*/`
		`/jackson-bom*.tar.gz`
		`/*.src.rpm`
		`/noarch/`

jackson-bom.spec

file modified

+4 -1

		`@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@`
		`Name: jackson-bom`
		`- Version: 2.10.1`
		`+ Version: 2.10.2`
		`Release: 1%{?dist}`
		`Summary: Bill of materials POM for Jackson projects`
		`License: ASL 2.0`
		`@@ -41,6 +41,9 @@`
		`%license LICENSE`

		`%changelog`
		`+ * Fri Jan 17 2020 Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@gmail.com> - 2.10.2-1`
		`+ - Update to version 2.10.2.`
		`+`
		`* Wed Nov 13 2019 Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@gmail.com> - 2.10.1-1`
		`- Update to version 2.10.1.`

sources

file modified

+1 -1

		`@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@`
		`- SHA512 (jackson-bom-2.10.1.tar.gz) = cd98cd9c4de5be408ea4138dde53bedbcaf4b5981399d726ff88b6e747156dc937ac0863c3632c73e7d6bb057c2b4e391a79d3650614f4a40c7410d6435a506d`
		`+ SHA512 (jackson-bom-2.10.2.tar.gz) = 61702134c3e9992b067694e67b3b8114b96361d8928780cc2426891ed2312165cd8d594c42f1240edb726c490ef812c956e343b7c7864629d6d1e6b343ac4513`

decathorpe commented 4 years ago

update to latest version (2.10.1 → 2.10.2)

Test rebuilds of dependent packages were successful (all build failures are pre-existing FTBFS issues on rawhide):

https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/decathorpe/jackson-2.10.2-prs/monitor/

dmoluguw commented 4 years ago

huh? This PR was missing from the stewardship-sig-prs.html :confused:
Update: Ah! This package is not maintained by stewardship!

This PR is straightfoward and LGTM.

Before we merge, do we need to submit PRs for jackson-dataformats-binary and jackson-dataformats-text too and ensure they keep everyone happy? They have 2.10.2 release made couple of days ago. This would keep the jackson family at the same version. Thoughts?

Edited 4 years ago by dmoluguw

decathorpe commented 4 years ago

@dmoluguw exactly! We depend on it, but mbooth maintains it.

Regarding jackson-dataformats-binary and jackson-dataformat-text: It's news to me that we need to care about these packages as well ... maybe we can work with @mbooth to get them updated as well. They're still on pre-2.10 releases.

I didn't have these packages on my radar since they were not tracked on koschei (I added them now).

Pull-Request has been merged by decathorpe

4 years ago