2010/7/27 Marcela Mašláňová <mmaslano@xxxxxxxxxx>: > On 07/27/2010 08:50 AM, Iain Arnell wrote: >> 2010/7/23 Marcela Mašláňová <mmaslano@xxxxxxxxxx>: >>> Hello, >>> I'd like to sent Draft for packaging guidelines for review. There were >>> added some changes a long time ago and it would be nice to have it >>> official. If there won't be any comments, I'll sent it at the end of >>> next week to comitee. >>> >>> The draft: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDraft:Perl >>> >>> It would be great to have a review from someone who has English as first >>> language. >> I've had a look and made a few uncontroversial tweaks to spelling and grammar. >> > Thank you. >> But I've also got a couple of slightly more controversial comments: >> [ big snip ] >> > I removed the actual part about directory ownership, because > it was useless and long. If you can sum it up in shorter paragraph, > please do so. Actually, your new version is about as good as it gets. We don't need to clutter the guidelines with justification and rambling examples. >> 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. >> > I believe cut length of packaging guidelines is good thing. I've > just mentioned Perl SIG above. But I didn't find any wiki page about > us, only Chris Draft > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ChrisWeyl/PerlDraft#Fedora_Perl_SIG_Mission > Do we have something better? Not that I'm aware of. And yes, this doesn't really belong in the guidelines. But until (or unless) we really have a SIG that's responsible for all things perl, I certainly understand "InitialCC: perl-sig" to mean that $packager won't mind too much if I overstep the normal provenpackager guidelines (admittedly, that's just a wild generalisation - I know that Chris. spot.and a few others don't mind, and I haven't stepped on anyone else's toes hard enough that they've complained yet). Maybe we should also consider splitting perl-sig mailing list into separate perl-sig-bug-and-cvs-spam and a real discussion list. -- Iain. -- 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
