perl packaging guidelines

[Iain Arnell]

2010/7/23 Marcela Mašláňová <mmaslano at redhat.com>:
> Hello,
> I'd like to sent Draft for packaging guidelines for review. There were
> added some changes a long time ago and it would be nice to have it
> official. If there won't be any comments, I'll sent it at the end of
> next week to comitee.
>
> The draft: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDraft:Perl
>
> It would be great to have a review from someone who has English as first
> language.

I've had a look and made a few uncontroversial tweaks to spelling and grammar.

But I've also got a couple of slightly more controversial comments:

Since we no longer have perl version numbers in @INC, I think the
whole "Directory Ownership" section should be updated to reflect the
current situation. With a few simple examples. Maybe something like:

In general, perl's hierarchical naming convention for modules does not
necessarily imply any hierarchical dependencies. For example,
perl-YAML and perl-YAML-Tiny both install files to
/usr/share/perl5/YAML; but perl-YAML-Tiny does not require perl-YAML
(its whole raison d'être is to be a smaller alternative) so both
packages need to own /usr/share/perl5/YAML directory.

Even where there is some form of hierarchy, the split between
arch-dependent and noarch packages can cause additional problems.
Although perl-Moose-Autobox does require perl-Moose,
perl-Moose-Autobox is a noarch package installing files to
/usr/share/perl5/Moose whereas perl-Moose is architecture-dependent
and installs its files to /usr/lib/perl5/Moose. Again, both packages
need to own their top-level Moose directory.


And I wonder if it's worth trying to clarify the role of perl-sig.
Since we don't have explicit group permissions in pkgdb, adding
perl-sig to initial-cc may be understood to mean that perl-sig
provenpackagers are effectively co-maintainers and may update packages
as and when necessary.


-- 
Iain.