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=757657 --- Comment #4 from Marcela Mašláňová <mmaslano@xxxxxxxxxx> 2012-01-04 06:04:36 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) > Spec file changes: > FIX: wx-scintilla/src/scintilla/License.txt looks like MIT but it is not exact > copy of any wordings from <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT>. > Please get confirmation by Fedora legal department. Scintiall variant should > appear on the web page. I've already sent email to legal. Spot answered it's MIT and my wording of license is correct. > > > FIX: Do not bundle Scintilla (wx-scintilla/src/scintilla/). > > Scintilla must be bundled. > FIX: Then you need exception from Fedora Packaging Committee Will do. > > TODO: Augment description with other paragraphs from lib/Wx/Scintilla.pm > FIX: Remove POD mark-up from Description text. Done. > > > FIX: Do not set RPATH in Scintilla.so (unbundle or use > > > LDFLAGS+=--enable-new-dtags to convert RPATH to RUN_PATH). > > I guess RPATH is not a problem here. They are using the bundled version, so > > they want to use this specific Scintilla.so. > RPATH cannot be overridden by environment variables (if requested by user) in > contrast to RUN_PATH. Thus converting RPATH to RUN_PATH is good. Apparently the > LDFLAGS value did not pass to linker. However this is not blocker, especially > if the second library is in private directory. So you can remove the useless > variable export. > Done. New specfile http://mmaslano.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Wx-Scintilla.spec FPC ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/126 -- 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