----- "Iain Arnell" <iarnell@xxxxxxxxx> 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] > > > > 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. > It could be possible even in dist-f15. > And I'm still not sure what the intended result is meant to be. 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? No, I won't plan changing vendorlib/vendorarch now. I still believe that moving all modules into privlib can't broke anything, because vendorarch/vendorlib isn't needed in distribution, but I'd like to have this directories here reserved for 3rd party RPMs. I'd like to hear your ideas about this. Rebuild of modules should solve problem of packages, which can't resolve their dependency, because of the change of vendorarch/vendorlib. Pure rebuild without changing anything vital should fix it. Marcela > > -- > Iain. > -- > 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 -- 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
