https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372923 --- Comment #5 from Don Beusee <don@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Anytime /etc/localtime is out of date, that represents a broken system from the sysadmin point of view, because s/he applied patches that are not properly applied (despite being installed, it's not being used). Any package installer updating the zoneinfo files must deal with this problem. However, that is not the scope of this bug. As a professional sysadmin and system programmer for 36 years, I submit that patching this Perl package is wrong from both perspectives (sysadmin and programmer). You cannot unilaterally decide how this package will work, because you're not the owner of it. The owner has to deal with any/all consequences of his/her decisions on how the package works, because s/he gets the bug reports and support tickets. You do the sysadmin a disservice by patching a package that is different from the original, behaving differently than if installed from cpan. You have done me (a fedora user/sysadmin) a disservice because I had to spend many hours debugging an issue that originates with an outdated localtime file compounded by a vendor patch to a package not owned by the vendor. When the owner told me my error was impossible and must be locally patched, I was in such disbelief that I spent time debugging to see exactly where the issue was, to prove if it was patched or not. Had I been using the original package from the owner, I would have received a more meaningful error and much sooner got my system fixed of the old localtime file and been on my way. Just like the owner of glibc can decide to use /etc/localtime, the Perl package owner can decide to use a platform neutral method of maintaining tz data. It is not for you or I to say it's wrong. It is wrong however, to modify someone else's code, especially when in disagreement with the owner. I would not want some vendor modifying my code and I'm sure if you were a package owner, you wouldn't either. You have agreed with me that it's better to raise an error so the sysadmin is notified there is a problem, but still you disagree with raising an error? Well, we can disagree, but it's not really your call. It's the owner's call. Frankly, I'd lose trust in fedora and redhat if they continue to modify code that's not theirs. You should be working with package owners to resolve issues and refer users to them when issues arise. When I find a bug, that's what I do, just as in this case. I only bugged here because you modified the code in question, and I believe that is, or at the very least, should be, outside your purview. Providing rpm packages in your distribution should be only a convenience so that we don't have to install a lot of cpan packages. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/perl-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
