On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:39:49 -0700 Stephen John Smoogen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Chris Adams <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Once upon a time, Ville Skyttä <[email protected]> said: > >> On Friday 12 March 2010, Chris Adams wrote: > >> > This is similar to mrtg vs. perl-SNMP_Session; mrtg has its own > >> > private copy of the SNMP_Session perl modules, but they are > >> > found by the auto-provides (so the RPM lists them). Then mrtg > >> > is a shorter name than perl-SNMP_Session, so a package requiring > >> > "perl(SNMP_Session)" gets a broken install. > >> > >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=563619 > > > > Yeah, that's a dupe of my 4 month old bug: > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532556 > > > > I looked at the RHEL 5.5 beta, but I didn't see a new mrtg package. > > Is there something we can put in the spec files to tell RPM not to > look at it? Packages requiring perl(SNMP_Session) could add a manual dependency on perl-SNMP_Session; this will pick up the wanted package and won't be fooled by the imposter. Paul. _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
