On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:33:31 +0100 Iain Arnell <iarnell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Marcela Maslanova > <mmaslano@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I created testing repo [1] with two updated core modules > > and updates repo with perl(core) packages. > > I've tested this scenario: > > 1/ perl package with perl-Module-Build-0.3500-110.fc13 and > > perl-version-0.77-110.fc13 2/ update from [1] to > > perl-Module-Build-0.3603-1.perltestrepo.noarch.rpm and > > perl-version-0.79-1.perltestrepo.i686.rpm 3/ enable > > 'marcaperl-update.repo' 4/ update to > > perl-5.10.1-112.1.perltestrepo.i386.rpm, > > perl-version-0.80-112.1.perltestrepo.i386.rpm, > > perl-Module-Build-0.3500-112.1.perltestrepo.i386.rpm > > > > This should test whether yum can handle lower version in main and > > higher in separated package (Module::Build). The update of packages > > went fine if 'Obsoletes' is used in new package [2]. > > Aha. Of course - 'Obsoletes' is necessary, but not why you think. The > problem here is that we may be moving from arch-dependent packages > (i.e. 1:perl-Module-Build-0.3500-110.fc13.x86_64) to noarch packages > (i.e. 1:perl-Module-Build-0.3603-1.perltestrepo.noarch). Even though > ENVR is higher in the noarch package, yum wont automatically update > from arch-dependant to noarch. That shouldn't be the case any more: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=502401 (fixed in F-11, at least it's supposed to be) > I guess that we should really fix > perl.spec so that the noarch subpackages are really noarch too. Yes, that should happen anyway. > I don't see anything in the existing guidelines that would prevent a > single binary rpm coming from more than one source rpm. But I guess we > shouldn't try to sneak this in - it would certainly be better to have > this loophole codified in the guidelines to prevent what you're > proposing by default, but to allow FPC/FESCO approved exceptions (come > to think of it, is there anything in the guidelines that prohibits me > from having '%package -n kernel' in a spec?). I'd even suggest that > the owner of the main package MUST be the owner of any independent > sub-packages too. Well, at least co-maintainer. Paul. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
