Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678221 --- Comment #3 from Mathieu Bridon <bochecha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-02-23 03:44:03 EST --- Thanks for the review, President! Here is an updated package: Spec URL: http://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-EV.spec SRPM URL: http://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-EV-4.03-2.fc16.src.rpm Full diff: diff --git a/perl-EV.spec b/perl-EV.spec index 00baa90..2b29f94 100644 --- a/perl-EV.spec +++ b/perl-EV.spec @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ Name: perl-EV Version: 4.03 -Release: 1%{?dist} +Release: 2%{?dist} Summary: Wrapper for the libev high-performance event loop library Group: Development/Libraries @@ -8,7 +8,6 @@ License: (GPL+ or Artistic) and (BSD or GPLv2+) URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/EV/ Source0: http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/M/ML/MLEHMANN/EV-%{version}.tar.gz Patch0: perl-EV-4.03-Don-t-ask-questions-at-build-time.patch -BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) BuildRequires: perl(common::sense) @@ -18,6 +17,9 @@ BuildRequires: perl(AnyEvent) => 2.6 Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo $version)) +%{?perl_default_filter} + + %description This module provides an interface to libev (<http://software.schmorp.de/pkg/libev.html>). While the included documentation @@ -28,6 +30,15 @@ specific backend with "LIBEV_FLAGS", or just about in any case because it has much more detailed information. +%package devel +Summary: Wrapper for the libev high-performance event loop library +Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} + + +%description devel +This package provides the development headers for the Perl EV module. + + %prep %setup -q -n EV-%{version} @@ -69,11 +80,24 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT %doc Changes COPYING README %{perl_vendorarch}/auto/* %{perl_vendorarch}/EV.pm -%{perl_vendorarch}/EV/ +%{perl_vendorarch}/EV +%exclude %{perl_vendorarch}/EV/*.h %{_mandir}/man3/*.3* +%files devel +%defattr(-,root,root,-) +%{perl_vendorarch}/EV/*.h + + %changelog +* Wed Feb 23 2011 Mathieu Bridon <bochecha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 4.03-2 +- Fixes asked during the review process: + - Filter the private shared EV.so out of the automatic Provides + - Put the header files in a -devel package +- Removed the Buildroot line since it's useless for newer versions of Fedora + and this package can only go in Fedora >= 15 due to its libev dependency) + * Mon Jan 24 2011 Mathieu Bridon <bochecha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 4.03-1 - Update to 4.03. - Use the system libev instead of the bundled one. --- (In reply to comment #2) > - = N/A > x = Check > ! = Problem > ? = Not evaluated > > === REQUIRED ITEMS === > [x] Rpmlint output: [... snip ...] > The private-shared-object-provides will go away if you use the Perl default > filter (as you should for all packages of Perl modules). See > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Perl_default_filter for the gory details. Fixed. > Is there a compelling reason for including include files in the main package? > If not, I'ld rather you split those two files in a -devel sub-package No reason, those rpmlint warnings just escaped me in the middle all those spelling suggestions. Fixed. > [x] Buildroot is correct > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) > > Note that Buildroot is ignored for semi-recent versions of Fedora and EPEL. Since this is only going to Fedora >= 15 anyway (dependency on libev), I removed the Buildroot line. > [!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > License type: GPLv2+ and Artistic That's GPLv2+ or Artistic, not and. > From where did you get "BSD or GPLv2+"? There's a bundled copy of libev in the source RPM. At build-time, I remove this folder and use instead the sources coming from the Fedora libev-source package, to avoid building against the bundled copy (this is what is done by other packages such as tigervnc that uses the sources from Xorg). The sources of libev are BSD or GPLv2+, hence the License tag. However, I must admit that I'm not sure I did it right license-wise: - since I'm building against the system-provided sources of libev, should I just remove the part related to the libev sources? - since the sources are still included in the source rpm, should I leave it as is? Not sure, I felt it was safer to keep all the licenses of all the included sources. > [!] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. I believe that was the same as above (rpmlint warning), so this is fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review