[Bug 483045] Review Request: perl-Test-Unit-Lite - Unit testing without external dependencies

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483045





--- Comment #8 from Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at freenet.de>  2009-02-12 11:33:04 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #7)
>      Please help me to understand how to avoid such clashes in future perl
> package reviews?
These are hard to catch.

The only semi-systematic approach I am aware about is to iterate through
repoquery --whatprovides 'perl(..)' on all provides a perl package provides.

I only caught these in this particular case, because another package
BR'ed: perl(Test::Unit::TestCase),
which resulted into this:

# repoquery --whatprovides 'perl(Test::Unit::TestCase)'
perl-Test-Unit-0:0.25-4.fc9.noarch
perl-Test-Unit-0:0.25-4.fc9.noarch
perl-Test-Unit-Lite-0:0.1101-1.fc10.noarch

> I think I just looked into code and see what META.yml said as
> provides. Also, I successfully installed this package using rpm command where I
> have already installed perl-Test-Unit.
Right, I am also observing this, but ... 

what is 
BR: perl(Test::Unit::TestCase)
supposed to do?

IMO, to pull-in the actual perl(Test::Unit::TestCase) module, i.e. the version
from perl-Test-Unit, not the "lite" version from perl-Test-Unit-Lite.

I fear, we are facing the tip of an iceberg of hidden issues.

> Did I miss anything in this review for
> such clash?
Strictly speaking, yes - but we all are humans :-)

I likely also would not have caught this.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.