Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483045 --- Comment #8 from Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-02-12 11:33:04 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) > Please help me to understand how to avoid such clashes in future perl > package reviews? These are hard to catch. The only semi-systematic approach I am aware about is to iterate through repoquery --whatprovides 'perl(..)' on all provides a perl package provides. I only caught these in this particular case, because another package BR'ed: perl(Test::Unit::TestCase), which resulted into this: # repoquery --whatprovides 'perl(Test::Unit::TestCase)' perl-Test-Unit-0:0.25-4.fc9.noarch perl-Test-Unit-0:0.25-4.fc9.noarch perl-Test-Unit-Lite-0:0.1101-1.fc10.noarch > I think I just looked into code and see what META.yml said as > provides. Also, I successfully installed this package using rpm command where I > have already installed perl-Test-Unit. Right, I am also observing this, but ... what is BR: perl(Test::Unit::TestCase) supposed to do? IMO, to pull-in the actual perl(Test::Unit::TestCase) module, i.e. the version from perl-Test-Unit, not the "lite" version from perl-Test-Unit-Lite. I fear, we are facing the tip of an iceberg of hidden issues. > Did I miss anything in this review for > such clash? Strictly speaking, yes - but we all are humans :-) I likely also would not have caught this. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review