On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Petr Pisar <ppisar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:00:46PM +0800, Robin Lee wrote: >> >> Some dual-life modules, like PathTools and CGI, are placed within >> vendor path in Fedora 15. This situation is not expected by some >> applications, for example, "cpanm -L" command will definitely fail if >> an installing package needs such dual-life modules. >> > This is problem of that applications. They should not expect exact location. > > Formally, some packagers wanted to install all Fedora modules into core. But > there are some RPM-related problems (files in debuginfo subpackages would > conflict because debug data are delivered by one subpackage for all > subpackages together) and some packagers were against it. I agree that this is the true obstacle. > >> So, why not just exclude such modules in perl.spec, > Because the meaning of dual-lived packages is to live together (in Fedora > repository, not in system). The idea is users are not disturbed by > updating all perl core subpackages just for sake of upgrading a core module. > >> and place the updated dual-life modules to site paths? >> > Site? Site is for third-party modules. If Fedora installed packages into site, > where would user install their software? Oh, sorry... s/site/vendor/ . > > > I think cpan* should be (pre)configured to install into site instead of > vendor. > > -- Petr > > -- > 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
