Hello all, If there are no objections, I'm going to mark this separate module for remove. Any thoughts?
--- wbr, Denis. On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Denis Fateyev <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
