On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 11:08 -0700, Chris Weyl wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:45 AM, Yanko Kaneti yaneti@declera.com wrote:
On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 11:58 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > Tom Callaway wrote: > > -%{perl_vendorlib}/* > > +%{perl_vendorlib}/DBIx/Class/* > > %{_mandir}/man3/*.3* > > > > %changelog > > +* Fri Jun 26 2009 Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@redhat.com> 0.03-2 > > +- fix duplicate directory ownership (perl-DBIx-Class owns %{perl_vendorlib}/DBIx/Class/) > > Tom, you are not fixing bugs your are breaking things! > > perl modules do not share a strict hierarchy, but are independent packages! What do you mean ? How DBI::Class::DynamicDefault is independent of DBI::Class ? http://deps.cpantesters.org/?module=DBIx::Class::DynamicDefault;perl=latest
What Ralf is rather vigorously saying is that both by convention and explicit guideline, due to the fluid nature of perl-* packages they're supposed to own everything they provide under %{perl_vendorarch} or %{perl_vendorlib}. Specifying ownership of a subset of that is considered a blocker at review and a packaging bug post-review... It's just a packging issue, it has nothing to do with the relationship between DBIC and DBIC::DynamicDefault.
I read the guidelines again and think I understand what you mean. I gotta say tho, whats written in the guidelines is not nearly explicit enough to convey the message. "there are several instances where it's desirable for multiple packages to own a directory" desirable, really.... "perl packages are permitted to share ownership of directories." permitted, how nice.
Its rather counter intuitive to the way that almost anything else works. Unless there is a bold "must" somewhere there, and perhaps a rpmlint warning I think this will come back again and again.
Cheers Yanko