[Bug 226275] Merge Review: perl-PDL

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: perl-PDL


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226275





------- Additional Comments From orion at cora.nwra.com  2007-08-09 16:09 EST -------
(In reply to comment #9)
> 
> However, rpmlint is still complaining about:
> 
> W: perl-PDL unversioned-explicit-provides perl(PDL::Config)
> etc...
> 
> And company.  Wouldn't it be better to version these with the same version as
> perl-PDL?

Well, the vast majority of the automatic perl provides are unversioned too, so
my take would be to leave the version out for now.

> also rpmlint complains about:
> 
> W: perl-PDL devel-file-in-non-devel-package
> /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/PDL/Core/pdlsimple.h
> etc...
> 
> We could probably move these to a perl-PDL-devel package, if they aren't needed
> at runtime.
> 

Not according to:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Perl#head-b867c6067f009c5ea8f21723d028e8b40fae15c7


Some more stuff:

- I've got perl-ExtUtils-F77 added to Fedora, so we can add:

BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::F77)
BuildRequires: gcc-gfortran

I'll also attach a patch that uses the RPM_OPT_FLAGS and -fPIC to compile to
fortran code, and fixes a test for gfortran/f77 compatibility.

This allows PDL::Slatec to build, so we can remove that from the listed Provides.

- Still need BuildRequires: libGLU-devel

- Looks like the License should be re-examined and the tag updated.  Possibly
"GPL+ or Artistic" though some files seem a little different.

- Looks like we need to add Provides: perl(PDL::Graphics::TriD::Objects)

- We need to filter perl(Win32::DDE::Client) from Requires now.

- Don't forget to bump release and add changelog entries!

I'll attach a patch for my spec changes as well.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.