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(a)fedoraproject.org> 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(a)fedoraproject.org> - 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(a)fedoraproject.org> - 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.