On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 11:08 -0700, Chris Weyl wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:45 AM, Yanko Kaneti
<yaneti(a)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(a)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