On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 8:32 PM, Iain Arnell wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Chris Weyl wrote:
>> I originally opposed the split of the perl package into perl +
>> sub-package for each included dual-life dist. My thinking then was
>> that "upstream is upstream, and why should we move awa
- "Marcela Maslanova" wrote:
> - "Iain Arnell" wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Paul Howarth
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:33:31 +0100
> > > Iain Arnell wrote:
> > >> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Marcela Maslanova
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > This should test wh
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:33:31 +0100
Iain Arnell wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Marcela Maslanova
> wrote:
> > I created testing repo [1] with two updated core modules
> > and updates repo with perl(core) packages.
> > I've tested this scenario:
> > 1/ perl package with perl-Module-Buil
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Marcela Maslanova wrote:
> I created testing repo [1] with two updated core modules
> and updates repo with perl(core) packages.
> I've tested this scenario:
> 1/ perl package with perl-Module-Build-0.3500-110.fc13 and
> perl-version-0.77-110.fc13
> 2/ update from
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 6:30 AM, Marcela Maslanova wrote:
> Hello,
> I'd like to ask on your opinion on dual lived modules in
> our distro. I knew that Mandriva has the main perl package
> and also provide rpms of sub-packages, which are easier to
> update. They are using pa
Hello,
I'd like to ask on your opinion on dual lived modules in
our distro. I knew that Mandriva has the main perl package
and also provide rpms of sub-packages, which are easier to
update. They are using patch that allows them override the
core modules. Also debian has perl core and sub-pac
