[Bug 906095] New: perl-IO-Compress confusion

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906095

Bug ID: 906095
           Summary: perl-IO-Compress confusion
           Product: Fedora
           Version: 18
         Component: perl
          Severity: unspecified
          Priority: unspecified
          Reporter: [e-mail]

Description of problem:

perl comes with perl-IO-Compress.<arch> module (after current updates this is
perl-IO-Compress-2.048-237.fc18) and "IO::Compress wrapper for modules"
summary. 
Nothing wrong with that except that in a distro there is also
perl-IO-Compress-2.058-1.fc18.noarch, dated "Tue 13 Nov 2012" which says:

The following modules used to be distributed separately, but are now
included with the IO-Compress distribution:
* Compress-Zlib
* IO-Compress-Zlib
* IO-Compress-Bzip2
* IO-Compress-Base

Due to versions the later is currently installed but quite possibly this
ordering may "flip" in the future.  So which of these should be there?  It is
not likely that a presence of all variations was really intended.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
perl-5.16.2-237.fc18
perl-IO-Compress-2.058-1.fc18

[Bug 906095] perl-IO-Compress confusion

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906095

Paul Howarth  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #1 from Paul Howarth  ---
It's OK for both to be there; yum will just pick the latest.

It's much the same situation as in Bug 620937#c4

Arguably the perl-IO-Compress package built from the main perl package should
be noarch, like the independent one though.

[Bug 906095] perl-IO-Compress confusion

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906095

Petr Pisar  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |CLOSED
         Resolution|---                         |RAWHIDE
           Assignee|[e-mail]         |[e-mail]
        Last Closed|                            |2013-01-31 03:16:54

--- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar  ---
As Paul said distributing both versions does not harm. Nevertheless we have
already removed older versions from rawhide. We are not going to do these
changes in stable release like F18. (The packages would remain available from
mirrors even after suggested change.)

The architecture value will be fixed at next build.

Thank you for the report.