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@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