Re: About placement of dual-life modules

2011-04-29 Thread Iain Arnell
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Robin Lee robinlee.s...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:00:46PM +0800, Robin Lee wrote: Some dual-life modules, like PathTools and CGI, are placed within vendor path in Fedora 15.

Re: About placement of dual-life modules

2011-04-29 Thread Petr Sabata
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 10:45:40AM +0200, Iain Arnell wrote: On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Robin Lee robinlee.s...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:00:46PM +0800, Robin Lee wrote: Some dual-life modules,

Re: About placement of dual-life modules

2011-04-27 Thread Robin Lee
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:00:46PM +0800, Robin Lee wrote: Some dual-life modules, like PathTools and CGI, are placed within vendor path in Fedora 15. This situation is not expected by some applications, for example, cpanm

About placement of dual-life modules

2011-04-26 Thread Robin Lee
Hi, all! Some dual-life modules, like PathTools and CGI, are placed within vendor path in Fedora 15. This situation is not expected by some applications, for example, cpanm -L command will definitely fail if an installing package needs such dual-life modules. So, why not just exclude such

Re: About placement of dual-life modules

2011-04-26 Thread Petr Pisar
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:00:46PM +0800, Robin Lee wrote: Some dual-life modules, like PathTools and CGI, are placed within vendor path in Fedora 15. This situation is not expected by some applications, for example, cpanm -L command will definitely fail if an installing package needs such