Re: annotated version of current CVS policy draft
Alexis Sukrieh dijo [Tue, May 10, 2005 at 09:09:37AM +0200]:
> I agree, I just put those lines to underline the fact that a webapp
> *could* put a specific Perl module for its purpose. For instance the
> 2.18 bugzilla package installs /usr/share/perl5/Bugzilla in order to
> provide the Bugzilla::Foo modules.
> But it could be just a reference to the Perl policy, indeed.
Hmmmm... I don't really like this - Shouldn't this be split into
different packages? The Perl modules should be in
libbugzilla-foo-perl, and bugzilla should depend on it. Of course,
probably libbugzilla-foo-perl will suggest (at least) bugzilla. I
mean, it's not wrong per-se to provide this module as part of
Bugzilla, but it can be taken out of it... I am not familiar with
Bugzilla, but usually the infrastructure can be useful in places where
the full package is not wanted.
> > i've said it beofore, and i'll say it again... static files should
> > DEFINITELY be readonly data. we make everyone's life easier if we
> > say that. for those who absolutely want the ability to edit all of
> > these files, we've discussed the feasibility of generating a tool
> > that would assist in this, and it seems fairly reasonable that we
> > could do it.
>
> Great, I aslo think that claiming the readonly state of our static files
> is the right thing to do. I just thought that some of us prefered to use
> the conffile solution.
...In broken webapps it is sometimes needed ;-) But yes, static files
should be considered as sacred. Of course, an admin can create his own
template directory (although it should not be in /usr/share/$pkg, but
that's up to him).
--
Gunnar Wolf - gwolf@gwolf.org - (+52-55)1451-2244 / 5554-9450
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF
Reply to: