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(a)redhat.com> 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.