Michael Schwendt wrote:
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?
The are no ambiguities wrt. the perl packaging rules.
The perl modules rules are simple: All perl-modules's directories below
%{perl_*dir} a perl module uses must be owned by this perl-modules.
It's irrelevant whether these deps are redundant to other (implicit)
package deps.
We once decided to go this road for the sake of simplicity, to prevent
people from trying to miss dependencies, because they "want to minimize
deps". In Fedora, this so far had tremendously helped to avoid getting
lost in missing perl-deps and to keep perl in good shape.
Openly said, I am really surprised (and upset) to be watching Spot, one
of the people who should really be familiar with this history, to be
wanting to turn back the wheel of time to the dark ages when RH based
distros did not obey this rule!
Ralf
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
