perl packaging guidelines

[Iain Arnell]

2010/7/27 Marcela Mašláňová <mmaslano at redhat.com>:
>  On 07/27/2010 08:50 AM, Iain Arnell wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> Thank you.
>> But I've also got a couple of slightly more controversial comments:
>>
[ big snip ]
>>
> I removed the actual part about directory ownership, because
> it was useless and long. If you can sum it up in shorter paragraph,
> please do so.

Actually, your new version is about as good as it gets. We don't need
to clutter the guidelines with justification and rambling examples.


>> 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.
>>
> I believe cut length of packaging guidelines is good thing. I've
> just mentioned Perl SIG above. But I didn't find any wiki page about
> us, only Chris Draft
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ChrisWeyl/PerlDraft#Fedora_Perl_SIG_Mission
> Do we have something better?

Not that I'm aware of. And yes, this doesn't really belong in the
guidelines. But until (or unless) we really have a SIG that's
responsible for all things perl, I certainly understand "InitialCC:
perl-sig" to mean that $packager won't mind too much if I overstep the
normal provenpackager guidelines (admittedly, that's just a wild
generalisation - I know that Chris. spot.and a few others don't mind,
and I haven't stepped on anyone else's toes hard enough that they've
complained yet).

Maybe we should also consider splitting perl-sig mailing list into
separate perl-sig-bug-and-cvs-spam and a real discussion list.


-- 
Iain.