On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:42:57 +0200, Ralf wrote: > > be fixing cases where the duplicate directory ownership is > > acceptable, like much of the perl structure, so you don't have to worry > > about that." > Well, ... he just has committed patches in which he does exactly the > opposite. > > He already started to break perl packages. That would be a pitty, because it would increase the number of unowned directories ( http://mschwendt.fedorapeople.org/dircheck-remote.py ). May I suggest that the packaging committee uses this opportunity to remove ambiguities from the ReviewGuidelines and PackagingGuidelines? | [...] there are several instances where it's desirable for multiple | packages to own a directory. | | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FileAndDirectoryOwnership | MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does | not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package | which does create that directory. [12] -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
