On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 5:06 AM, Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 06/28/2009 07:25 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:In my defense, I was focusing on the main guidelines, and the spirit of
> 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 problem which is this:
When there is a clear and direct dependency between Package A and
Package B,
there is no need for Package A and Package B to own the same directory.
I forgot to take into account the versioned perl pathing nightmare, and
have been violently flamed for it. Thank you to the people who were able
to coherently and politely point out the issue to me and not assume that
my memory contains everything.
For the record, thank you for doing this :) While we all tend to have our own little bailiwicks, it's always good to see actions aimed at improving distribution as a whole, and an effort like this definitely falls into that category.
-Chris
--
Chris Weyl
Ex astris, scientia
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
