On 11/2/10 8:18 PM, "Dag Wieers" <d...@wieers.com> wrote: >On Wed, 3 Nov 2010, Dag Wieers wrote: > >> On Tue, 2 Nov 2010, Christoph Maser wrote: >> >>> Am Freitag, den 29.10.2010, 14:00 +0200 schrieb Yury V. Zaytsev: >>> > On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 13:46 +0200, Christoph Maser wrote: >>> > >>> > > I wonder if we can have a new version of ExtUtils::MakeMaker in >>>the >>> > > buildtools repo? >>> > >>> > If it backwards compatible why not? Just tag it as such... >>> >>> But wich one will be used?. ExtUtils::MakeMaker in in the perl base >>> package, so I guess a newe Version in the vendorlib dir will just not >>> do. >> >> If this is the typical: we need the package only as a BuildRequirement, >>but >> never as a real requirement. Then the package belongs in the buildtools >> repository (together with the newer bison and flex). > >Replying to the wrong message, again... > >A newer version in the vendorlib should work for RHEL5. The only problem >are the man-pages, which we can filter out with our fancy filtering >macros ! > >If we plan to replace other modules from the perl package, I would >propose >we put them in the future 'extras' repositories where all packages will >house that replace base (or depend on stuff that replace base). > >Still need a good name for that though...
Now that extras and other build changes are in in place is the latest namespace::clean capable of being packaged? Thanks, -- David Steinbrunner _______________________________________________ suggest mailing list suggest@lists.rpmforge.net http://lists.rpmforge.net/mailman/listinfo/suggest
