On 27/07/10 07:50, Iain Arnell wrote: > Since we no longer have perl version numbers in @INC, I think the > whole "Directory Ownership" section should be updated to reflect the > current situation. With a few simple examples. Maybe something like: > > In general, perl's hierarchical naming convention for modules does not > necessarily imply any hierarchical dependencies. For example, > perl-YAML and perl-YAML-Tiny both install files to > /usr/share/perl5/YAML; but perl-YAML-Tiny does not require perl-YAML > (its whole raison d'être is to be a smaller alternative) so both > packages need to own /usr/share/perl5/YAML directory. > > Even where there is some form of hierarchy, the split between > arch-dependent and noarch packages can cause additional problems. > Although perl-Moose-Autobox does require perl-Moose, > perl-Moose-Autobox is a noarch package installing files to > /usr/share/perl5/Moose whereas perl-Moose is architecture-dependent > and installs its files to /usr/lib/perl5/Moose. Again, both packages > need to own their top-level Moose directory. > > > And I wonder if it's worth trying to clarify the role of perl-sig. > Since we don't have explicit group permissions in pkgdb, adding > perl-sig to initial-cc may be understood to mean that perl-sig > provenpackagers are effectively co-maintainers and may update packages > as and when necessary. That all sounds fine to me. Paul. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
