[Fedora-packaging] Re: [Bug 198881] Review Request: perl-POE-Filter-IRCD

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 00:55 -0400, bugzilla at redhat.com wrote:
> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
> comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
> 
> Summary: Review Request: perl-POE-Filter-IRCD
> 
> 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198881
> 
> 
> cweyl at alumni.drew.edu changed:
> 
>            What    |Removed                     |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>              Status|ASSIGNED                    |CLOSED
>          Resolution|                            |NEXTRELEASE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------- Additional Comments From cweyl at alumni.drew.edu  2006-07-19 00:46 EST -------
> Ok, I think the rhetoric here is getting a touch out of hand, and making a very
> large issue out of a not-so-large one.
> 
> Perl modules are fairly "special", in that basically the same specfile can
> handle all of them (with package specific description, etc, being adapted, of
> course).  They're also special in that there's a LOT of them.
> 
> For those two reasons, I try to hew as close to the specfile template as
> possible.  --> The closer to the template a perl module spec is the more readily
> apparent errors are, especially when there's a _lot_ of them. <--
I beg to differ. IMO, you are slavishly copying without thinking what you are doing.

> It's easy to scan a perl spec and almost instinctively know when something is
> missing, when as little deviation as necessary is made from it.
The only party which deviates is Tibbs/Weyl.

If Jason had directed you to drop OPTIMIZE/find *.bs from the very
beginning, as probably all other perl-package reviewers in the past have
done, this would have not escalated.

IIRC, JPO, Steve P., Jesse Keating, Paul H., Warren T. and me have all
done so in the past.

> Ralf, I do not do this "mindlessly", "without thinking", or "sloppily".  I do
> check to ensure the extra lines (w.r.t. OPTIMIZE) doesn't adversely impact the
> building of the package. I'm not resistant to learning, and in fact find myself
> learning daily and seeking input.  To date I haven't been provided with any
> reason why, in my judgement, it would be advantagous to abandon this practice.
Well, that's not the impression you make on me. I regret having to say
this, but I sense you as a person who seems to need "regulations" for
each any every bit he writes and who doesn't have understood the meaning
of "templates"

Templates are supposed to be filled with life by humans, not to be
slavishly copied.

> If you want, bring this issue before the packaging committee. 
In Fedora it has always been common agreement to keep specs minimal and
not to clutter/pollute them with potentially harmful junk.

Ralf