Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Spiffy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183028 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-02-27 11:01 EST ------- > It does. perl(xxx) is the file dependency on xxx.pm with the %vendor*/%perl* > cruft removed. Now that's a clean, well defined statement that I can live with. But is it actually written down as policy anywhere? Judging from things like "webserver", I have always taken Requires:/Provides: to be based on functionality except when specifying paths or library names. If perl(blah) is different then things are certainly simpler, but this really has to be written down somewhere that someone like me can find. Otherwise I'm just seeing policy being made up on the spot and frankly it looks rather capricious. (See also the veto thing.) In any case, this is just banter until we hear from Steve. So, Steve: I think the Provides: perl(mixin) is the only issue of contention, so if you drop that and fixe the Source0: URL and the summary then I'll approve this and move on to the rest of your submissions. If you don't want to drop the Provides: and filter out the dependency downstream, then say so and we'll try to figure something else out. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
