On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:53:07 +0200, Ralf wrote: > 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. I haven't referred to Perl packaging, but the general Packaging and Review Guidelines. Unfortunately, you decided to cut off what I've quoted from them. The part I find ambiguous. The Perl packaging guidelines have their own section on directory ownership: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Application_Specific_Guidelines -> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl#Directory_Ownership It's only a little bit ambiguous as it doesn't cover a "MUST" but just a "MAY" (quote: "are permitted to"). -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
