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_...
->
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").