Skip Menu |

This queue is for tickets about the Mail-Box CPAN distribution.

Report information
The Basics
Id: 29266
Status: resolved
Priority: 0/
Queue: Mail-Box
People
Owner: Nobody in particular
Requestors: joshkel [...] gmail.com
Cc:
AdminCc:
Bug Information
Severity: Unimportant
Broken in: 2.073
Fixed in: (no value)

History Show all quoted text
  Sun Sep 09 21:53:55 2007 joshkel [...] gmail.com - Ticket created
Subject: Mail::Box::Construct confuses RPM
The "package Mail::Message;" at the top of Mail/Message/Construct.pm confuses the dependency checker in RPM (at least on my CentOS 5 Linux system) and possibly other dependency checkers. RPM expects that, since a Mail/Message/Construct.pm file exists, it should be able to find a Mail::Message::Construct package, and it's unable to do so. I think that the easiest fix is to add a "package Mail::Message::Construct;" statement immediately before "package Mail::Message;" in Construct.pm. I'm not terribly familiar with Perl packaging, but the following web site says that this is a legitimate idiom: http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2003/08/07/design2.html?page=2 Thank you. Background info: Mail-Box-2.073 perl, v5.8.8 built for x86_64-linux-thread-multi CentOS Linux 5
  Mon Sep 10 15:26:34 2007 MARKOV [...] cpan.org - Correspondence added
I think that the RPM builder is incorrect. There are many more modules which do the same... although sometimes hidden in the autoloader. So... to my view on this world, you should report this problem to that author.
  Mon Sep 10 15:26:40 2007 The RT System itself - Status changed from 'new' to 'open'
  Mon Sep 10 23:09:37 2007 joshkel [...] gmail.com - Correspondence added
From: joshkel [...] gmail.com
I'm sorry; by "RPM builder", I'm not sure if you mean the set of build scripts provided with RPM (which attempt to automatically handle dependencies and prerequisites and are confused by Mail::Box::Construct) or the person responsible for packaging Mail::Box into an RPM package (who can add a workaround for RPM's build scripts being confused by Mail::Box::Construct). I think you mean the latter, but I just wanted to clarify... I've noticed that SpamAssassin, for example, uses two package statements in a row in situations like this, and the article I linked to seems to recommend it, and I think that RPM packagers generally prefer to see problems handled upstream where possible rather than at the packaging level. But if you would prefer that this be handled at the packaging level, I'll be happy to report it to the packager. Thank you for your time.
  Tue Sep 11 04:06:43 2007 Mark [...] Overmeer.net - Correspondence added
Subject: Re: [rt.cpan.org #29266] Mail::Box::Construct confuses RPM
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:06:12 +0200
To: Josh Kelley via RT <bug-Mail-Box [...] rt.cpan.org>
From: Mark Overmeer <mark [...] overmeer.net>
* Josh Kelley via RT (bug-Mail-Box@rt.cpan.org) [070911 03:09]: Show quoted text
> > Queue: Mail-Box > Ticket <URL: http://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=29266 > > > I'm sorry; by "RPM builder", I'm not sure if you mean the set of build > scripts provided with RPM (which attempt to automatically handle > dependencies and prerequisites and are confused by Mail::Box::Construct) > or the person responsible for packaging Mail::Box into an RPM package > (who can add a workaround for RPM's build scripts being confused by > Mail::Box::Construct). I think you mean the latter, but I just wanted > to clarify...
Yes, the latter. Although I can understand why there are problems: Perl's ideas about versioning is flawed. Probably, the best thing is to ignore information from packages when filename != packagename. Show quoted text
> I've noticed that SpamAssassin, for example, uses two package statements > in a row in situations like this, and the article I linked to seems to > recommend it, and I think that RPM packagers generally prefer to see > problems handled upstream where possible rather than at the packaging > level. But if you would prefer that this be handled at the packaging > level, I'll be happy to report it to the packager. Thank you for your time.
Yeh, that is the only correct thing: module authors (like me) are not really willing to make changes to facilitate rpm... and deb, yum, etc etc -- Regards, MarkOv ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mark Overmeer MSc MARKOV Solutions Mark@Overmeer.net solutions@overmeer.net http://Mark.Overmeer.net http://solutions.overmeer.net
  Wed Sep 12 09:30:35 2007 joshkel [...] gmail.com - Correspondence added
Subject: Re: [rt.cpan.org #29266] Mail::Box::Construct confuses RPM
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:27:50 -0400
To: bug-Mail-Box [...] rt.cpan.org
From: "Josh Kelley" <joshkel [...] gmail.com>
On 9/11/07, Mark Overmeer via RT <bug-Mail-Box@rt.cpan.org> wrote: Show quoted text
> Yeh, that is the only correct thing: module authors (like me) are not > really willing to make changes to facilitate rpm... and deb, yum, etc etc
I reported it to the packager. Thank you again for your time. Josh Kelley
  Fri Sep 21 02:56:23 2007 MARKOV [...] cpan.org - Correspondence added
Considered not to be my problem, ticket closed
  Fri Sep 21 02:56:29 2007 MARKOV [...] cpan.org - Status changed from 'open' to 'resolved'