[users] How should we report problematic packages?

Denis Fateyev denis at fateyev.com
Fri Jun 10 18:00:44 CEST 2011


Hello Dag,

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Dag Wieers <dag at wieers.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Denis Fateyev wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 4:35 AM, Ben Tilly <btilly at gmail.com> 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 at build2-amd64 ~]# rpm -qa | grep DBI
perl-DBI-1.52-2.el5

[root at build2-amd64 ~]# rpm -ql perl-DBI
...
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/DBD/File.pm
...

--------------------------------------------------------
[root at build1-amd64 ~]# rpm -qa | grep DBI
perl-DBI-1.609-4.el6.x86_64

[root at 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20110610/504f4f3c/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the users mailing list