Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Inconsistent @INC https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448735 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx 2008-05-29 08:16 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > Well, if I remove the empty directory /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.7, > then it disappears from @INC. That's one half of the issue. The real issue is # rpm -q --provides perl | grep COMPAT perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.0) Note: No COMPAT_5.8.* .... => You can't install packages, which rpm-wise Require perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8...) => Though these package might be functional at run-time, these package are broken rpm-wise. > The report also shows another inconsistency: on i386, site_perl is under > /usr/lib*, while on x86_64 it is under /usr/local/lib*. Which is right? > > Since our rpm's should install to vendor_perl, not site_perl, it would seem > that /usr/local/lib* is the right place for site_perl. How do other distros handle site_perl? > But we have to do something > about backward compatibility... Would a symlink suffice? No way - never. /usr/local/lib* is not Fedora's business. Fedora may set up perl's site_perl configuration to point to something below /usr/local, but adding a symlink is no-no. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list Fedora-perl-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list
