rpms/perl-DBIx-Class-DynamicDefault/devel perl-DBIx-Class-DynamicDefault.spec, 1.1, 1.2

[Yanko Kaneti]

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