Re: [Fedora-packaging] review guidelines vs packaging guidelines

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le Jeu 23 août 2007 12:58, Patrice Dumas a écrit :

>  Ok, I didn't understood it that way. But it isn't true, the
> guidelines
>  are setup such that having no ownership of a directory is impossible. 
I'm not so sure. The lax guidelines are more ambiguous, at no time do
they clearly say "every directory must be owned" (with single or
multiple owners). They say "the rule of thumb is everything must be
owned but there are exceptions". And then proceed with some examples
where every directory is accounted for without explicitely stating
this is a hard rule. I don't think the OP would have been so happy
with the lax version if he had understood them to enforce this rule.

IMHO since the documented "exceptions" are clearly targetted at perl
modules, it would be better to create a perl-filesystem package and
forget about all the complex A/B convolutions in the guidelines. But
that's for the perl SIG to discuss.

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

[Fedora-packaging] review guidelines vs packaging guidelines

[Patrice Dumas]

On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 01:14:45PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>  
>  Le Jeu 23 août 2007 12:58, Patrice Dumas a écrit :
>  
>  > Ok, I didn't understood it that way. But it isn't true, the guidelines
>  > are setup such that having no ownership of a directory is impossible.
>  
>  I'm not so sure. The lax guidelines are more ambiguous, at no time do
>  they clearly say "every directory must be owned" (with single or
>  multiple owners). They say "the rule of thumb is everything must be 
Indeed. It would be much more clearer if there was, in addition to all
the explanations, a simple sentence saying, maybe as a conclusion of all
the examples:

"In any case there should never be any unowned directory appearing after
a package uninstall."

--
Pat

[Fedora-packaging] review guidelines vs packaging guidelines

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le Jeu 23 août 2007 15:34, Patrice Dumas a écrit :
>  On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 01:14:45PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> >
> > Le Jeu 23 août 2007 12:58, Patrice Dumas a écrit :
> >
> > > Ok, I didn't understood it that way. But it isn't true, the
> > guidelines
> > > are setup such that having no ownership of a directory is
> > impossible.
> >
> > I'm not so sure. The lax guidelines are more ambiguous, at no time
> > do
> > they clearly say "every directory must be owned" (with single or
> > multiple owners). They say "the rule of thumb is everything must be
>
>  Indeed. It would be much more clearer if there was, in addition to all
>  the explanations, a simple sentence saying, maybe as a conclusion of
>  all
>  the examples:
>
>  "In any case there should never be any unowned directory appearing
>  after
>  a package uninstall." 
Who can add this ?

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot