Hello Dag, On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Dag Wieers <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Denis Fateyev wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 4:35 AM, Ben Tilly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> For instance perl-DBI-1.616-1.el5.rfx.x86_64.rpm contains > >> /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/DBD/File.pm > >> which causes it to conflict with > >> repoforge/perl-DBD-File-0.34-1.2.el5.rf.noarch.rpm. > >> > >> Is there a standard way to report these? > > > > Since it was declared with "rfx", what behavior you have expected? > > I think it makes sense to remove that file from the perl-DBI package, > especially if the 'official' upstream perl-DBI does not ship it either. Apparently, it does: -------------------------------------------------------- [root@build2-amd64 ~]# rpm -qa | grep DBI perl-DBI-1.52-2.el5 [root@build2-amd64 ~]# rpm -ql perl-DBI ... /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/DBD/File.pm ... -------------------------------------------------------- [root@build1-amd64 ~]# rpm -qa | grep DBI perl-DBI-1.609-4.el6.x86_64 [root@build1-amd64 ~]# rpm -ql perl-DBI ... /usr/lib64/perl5/DBD/File.pm ... -------------------------------------------------------- I see no reason why we should have two packages with `DBD::File` conflicting each other. Would be better to organize it as done in upstream: all in one package called 'perl-DBI'. If someone needs a fresh version of `DBD::File`, we could ship it simply as 'perl-DBI' package update. --- wbr, Denis.
_______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.repoforge.org/mailman/listinfo/users
