[users] How should we report problematic packages?

[Ben Tilly]

For instance perl-DBI-1.616-1.el5.rfx.x86_64.rpm contains
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/DBD/File.pm
which causes it to conflict with
repoforge/perl-DBD-File-0.34-1.2.el5.rf.noarch.rpm.

Is there a standard way to report these?

[Denis Fateyev]

Hello,

Since it was declared with "rfx", what behavior you have expected?

---
wbr, Denis.

Post by Ben Tilly
For instance perl-DBI-1.616-1.el5.rfx.x86_64.rpm contains
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/DBD/File.pm
which causes it to conflict with
repoforge/perl-DBD-File-0.34-1.2.el5.rf.noarch.rpm.
Is there a standard way to report these?
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users at lists.repoforge.org
http://lists.repoforge.org/mailman/listinfo/users

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20110610/b73d3484/attachment.html

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Denis Fateyev

Post by Ben Tilly
For instance perl-DBI-1.616-1.el5.rfx.x86_64.rpm contains
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/DBD/File.pm
which causes it to conflict with
repoforge/perl-DBD-File-0.34-1.2.el5.rf.noarch.rpm.
Is there a standard way to report these?

Since it was declared with "rfx", what behavior you have expected?

I think it makes sense to remove that file from the perl-DBI package,
especially if the 'official' upstream perl-DBI does not ship it either.

To answer the original question, we have recently moved to github (but
have not announced it yet). In github you can report issues, or even
better, propose a fix by directly editing the file and offering a
pull-request.

http://github.com/repoforge/

We hope this way of working enables everyone to come up with improvements
without the overhead the past contribution model had.

Kind regards,

[Denis Fateyev]

Hello Dag,

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Denis Fateyev

Post by Ben Tilly
For instance perl-DBI-1.616-1.el5.rfx.x86_64.rpm contains
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/DBD/File.pm
which causes it to conflict with
repoforge/perl-DBD-File-0.34-1.2.el5.rf.noarch.rpm.
Is there a standard way to report these?

Since it was declared with "rfx", what behavior you have expected?

I think it makes sense to remove that file from the perl-DBI package,
especially if the 'official' upstream perl-DBI does not ship it either.

Apparently, it does:
--------------------------------------------------------
[root at build2-amd64 ~]# rpm -qa | grep DBI
perl-DBI-1.52-2.el5

[root at build2-amd64 ~]# rpm -ql perl-DBI
...
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/DBD/File.pm
...

--------------------------------------------------------
[root at build1-amd64 ~]# rpm -qa | grep DBI
perl-DBI-1.609-4.el6.x86_64

[root at build1-amd64 ~]# rpm -ql perl-DBI
...
/usr/lib64/perl5/DBD/File.pm
...
--------------------------------------------------------

I see no reason why we should have two packages with `DBD::File` conflicting
each other. Would be better to organize it as done in upstream: all in one
package called 'perl-DBI'. If someone needs a fresh version of `DBD::File`,
we could ship it simply as 'perl-DBI' package update.

---
wbr, Denis.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20110610/504f4f3c/attachment.html

[Denis Fateyev]

Hello all,

If there are no objections, I'm going to mark this separate module for
remove.
Any thoughts?

---
wbr, Denis.

Post by Denis Fateyev
Hello Dag,

Post by Ben Tilly

Post by Denis Fateyev

Post by Ben Tilly
For instance perl-DBI-1.616-1.el5.rfx.x86_64.rpm contains

/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/DBD/File.pm

Post by Denis Fateyev

Post by Ben Tilly
which causes it to conflict with
repoforge/perl-DBD-File-0.34-1.2.el5.rf.noarch.rpm.
Is there a standard way to report these?

Since it was declared with "rfx", what behavior you have expected?

I think it makes sense to remove that file from the perl-DBI package,
especially if the 'official' upstream perl-DBI does not ship it either.

--------------------------------------------------------
[root at build2-amd64 ~]# rpm -qa | grep DBI
perl-DBI-1.52-2.el5
[root at build2-amd64 ~]# rpm -ql perl-DBI
...
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/DBD/File.pm
...
--------------------------------------------------------
[root at build1-amd64 ~]# rpm -qa | grep DBI
perl-DBI-1.609-4.el6.x86_64
[root at build1-amd64 ~]# rpm -ql perl-DBI
...
/usr/lib64/perl5/DBD/File.pm
...
--------------------------------------------------------
I see no reason why we should have two packages with `DBD::File`
all in one package called 'perl-DBI'. If someone needs a fresh version of
`DBD::File`, we could ship it simply as 'perl-DBI' package update.
---
wbr, Denis.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20110702/7b7acc13/attachment.html

[Denis Fateyev]

Hello all,

If there are no objections, I'm going to mark this separate module for
remove.
Any thoughts?

---
wbr, Denis.

Post by Denis Fateyev
Hello Dag,

Post by Ben Tilly

Post by Denis Fateyev

Post by Ben Tilly
For instance perl-DBI-1.616-1.el5.rfx.x86_64.rpm contains

/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/DBD/File.pm

Post by Denis Fateyev

Post by Ben Tilly
which causes it to conflict with
repoforge/perl-DBD-File-0.34-1.2.el5.rf.noarch.rpm.
Is there a standard way to report these?

Since it was declared with "rfx", what behavior you have expected?

I think it makes sense to remove that file from the perl-DBI package,
especially if the 'official' upstream perl-DBI does not ship it either.

--------------------------------------------------------
[root at build2-amd64 ~]# rpm -qa | grep DBI
perl-DBI-1.52-2.el5
[root at build2-amd64 ~]# rpm -ql perl-DBI
...
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/DBD/File.pm
...
--------------------------------------------------------
[root at build1-amd64 ~]# rpm -qa | grep DBI
perl-DBI-1.609-4.el6.x86_64
[root at build1-amd64 ~]# rpm -ql perl-DBI
...
/usr/lib64/perl5/DBD/File.pm
...
--------------------------------------------------------
I see no reason why we should have two packages with `DBD::File`
all in one package called 'perl-DBI'. If someone needs a fresh version of
`DBD::File`, we could ship it simply as 'perl-DBI' package update.
---
wbr, Denis.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20110702/7b7acc13/attachment-0002.html>

[Denis Fateyev]

Hello Dag,

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Denis Fateyev

Post by Ben Tilly
For instance perl-DBI-1.616-1.el5.rfx.x86_64.rpm contains
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/DBD/File.pm
which causes it to conflict with
repoforge/perl-DBD-File-0.34-1.2.el5.rf.noarch.rpm.
Is there a standard way to report these?

Since it was declared with "rfx", what behavior you have expected?

I think it makes sense to remove that file from the perl-DBI package,
especially if the 'official' upstream perl-DBI does not ship it either.

Apparently, it does:
--------------------------------------------------------
[root at build2-amd64 ~]# rpm -qa | grep DBI
perl-DBI-1.52-2.el5

[root at build2-amd64 ~]# rpm -ql perl-DBI
...
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/DBD/File.pm
...

--------------------------------------------------------
[root at build1-amd64 ~]# rpm -qa | grep DBI
perl-DBI-1.609-4.el6.x86_64

[root at build1-amd64 ~]# rpm -ql perl-DBI
...
/usr/lib64/perl5/DBD/File.pm
...
--------------------------------------------------------

I see no reason why we should have two packages with `DBD::File` conflicting
each other. Would be better to organize it as done in upstream: all in one
package called 'perl-DBI'. If someone needs a fresh version of `DBD::File`,
we could ship it simply as 'perl-DBI' package update.

---
wbr, Denis.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20110610/504f4f3c/attachment-0002.html>

[Ben Tilly]

I don't even know what you mean by "declared with 'rfx'".

Post by Denis Fateyev
Hello,
Since it was declared with "rfx", what behavior you have expected?
---
wbr, Denis.

Post by Ben Tilly
For instance perl-DBI-1.616-1.el5.rfx.x86_64.rpm contains
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/DBD/File.pm
which causes it to conflict with
repoforge/perl-DBD-File-0.34-1.2.el5.rf.noarch.rpm.
Is there a standard way to report these?
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users at lists.repoforge.org
http://lists.repoforge.org/mailman/listinfo/users

_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users at lists.repoforge.org
http://lists.repoforge.org/mailman/listinfo/users

[Steve Huff]

Post by Ben Tilly
I don't even know what you mean by "declared with 'rfx'".

more information is in this post to the users list, from November 2010:

http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/2010-November/018282.html

in a nutshell: Denis is pointing out that you're installing a rfx package (perl-DBI-1.616-1.el5.rfx), and it is clobbering part of an rf package (perl-DBD-File-0.34-1.2.el5.rf). we expect rfx packages to clobber or conflict with upstream packages; however, we generally don't expect rfx packages to clobber other rf packages, so (as Dag points out) we should fix this problem.

-steve

--
If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction. - Fabian, Twelfth Night, III,v
PGP 8477B706 (A92A 1F7E 6D76 16A0 BFF9 E61D AD54 0251 8477 B706)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 243 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20110610/8390affd/attachment.bin

[Steve Huff]

Post by Ben Tilly
I don't even know what you mean by "declared with 'rfx'".

more information is in this post to the users list, from November 2010:

http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/2010-November/018282.html

in a nutshell: Denis is pointing out that you're installing a rfx package (perl-DBI-1.616-1.el5.rfx), and it is clobbering part of an rf package (perl-DBD-File-0.34-1.2.el5.rf). we expect rfx packages to clobber or conflict with upstream packages; however, we generally don't expect rfx packages to clobber other rf packages, so (as Dag points out) we should fix this problem.

-steve

--
If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction. - Fabian, Twelfth Night, III,v
PGP 8477B706 (A92A 1F7E 6D76 16A0 BFF9 E61D AD54 0251 8477 B706)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 243 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20110610/8390affd/attachment.sig>

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Denis Fateyev

Post by Ben Tilly
For instance perl-DBI-1.616-1.el5.rfx.x86_64.rpm contains
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/DBD/File.pm
which causes it to conflict with
repoforge/perl-DBD-File-0.34-1.2.el5.rf.noarch.rpm.
Is there a standard way to report these?

Since it was declared with "rfx", what behavior you have expected?

I think it makes sense to remove that file from the perl-DBI package,
especially if the 'official' upstream perl-DBI does not ship it either.

To answer the original question, we have recently moved to github (but
have not announced it yet). In github you can report issues, or even
better, propose a fix by directly editing the file and offering a
pull-request.

http://github.com/repoforge/

We hope this way of working enables everyone to come up with improvements
without the overhead the past contribution model had.

Kind regards,

[Ben Tilly]

I don't even know what you mean by "declared with 'rfx'".

Post by Denis Fateyev
Hello,
Since it was declared with "rfx", what behavior you have expected?
---
wbr, Denis.

Post by Ben Tilly
For instance perl-DBI-1.616-1.el5.rfx.x86_64.rpm contains
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/DBD/File.pm
which causes it to conflict with
repoforge/perl-DBD-File-0.34-1.2.el5.rf.noarch.rpm.
Is there a standard way to report these?
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users at lists.repoforge.org
http://lists.repoforge.org/mailman/listinfo/users

_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users at lists.repoforge.org
http://lists.repoforge.org/mailman/listinfo/users

[Ben Tilly]

For instance perl-DBI-1.616-1.el5.rfx.x86_64.rpm contains
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/DBD/File.pm
which causes it to conflict with
repoforge/perl-DBD-File-0.34-1.2.el5.rf.noarch.rpm.

Is there a standard way to report these?

[Denis Fateyev]

Hello,

Since it was declared with "rfx", what behavior you have expected?

---
wbr, Denis.

Post by Ben Tilly
For instance perl-DBI-1.616-1.el5.rfx.x86_64.rpm contains
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/DBD/File.pm
which causes it to conflict with
repoforge/perl-DBD-File-0.34-1.2.el5.rf.noarch.rpm.
Is there a standard way to report these?
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users at lists.repoforge.org
http://lists.repoforge.org/mailman/listinfo/users

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20110610/b73d3484/attachment-0002.html>