On 12/11/2010 10:25 AM, Iain Arnell wrote: > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Marcela Maslanova<mmaslano@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hello, >> because of bug in paths (vendorarch), there will be needed >> rebuild of some packages (~1300). I choose only those >> which weren't rebuild with vendorarch in Perl. [1] Would you please elaborate in detail what you are going to do? If what I gather between the lines of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661697#c2 I am expecting the worse. >> I've asked for testing dist tag, so nothing will be >> broken [2]. Rebuild will start next week. > > Is there something in place to avoid the problems we had last time > with "older" packages from the rebuild tag overriding "newer" packages > in dist-f15 itself? And is a separate tag really necessary for this? > Perl is already looking in both core and vendor directories, so there > should be no breakage due to modules installed in the "wrong" place. If the intention is to move all packages to %{_libdir}/perl5/vendor_perl then a separate tag should not be necessary. > And I'm still not sure what the intended result is meant to be. So do I. I feel the way the perl maintainers @redhat.cz are communicating with the community leaves much to be desired. > Are > you planning to update all the specs to use privlib/archlib so that > everything ends up in the core directories? Or keeping > vendorlib/vendorarch and merely rebuilding to move the modules out of > the core directories again? Ralf -- 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
