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=513896 --- Comment #20 from Jarod Wilson <[email protected]> 2009-09-04 15:26:37 EDT --- > We also had a discussion on freenode.net #pcp about what to do with the Perl > binding for PCP. Perhaps you could provide some guidance here for the > packaging > perspective - the perl binding is part of the main src tree (below src/cpan) > but the packaging is currently driven by MakeMaker (with a manual step to > build > the pcp perl RPMs from the resulting spec). Ideally, we'd like the perl > binding > to be a sub-package, e.g. "pcp-perl-this-and-that", with the build and > packaging all driven by the main spec. I have some simple changes to the spec > that implements this but it probably violates the Fedora Perl packaging > guidelines - anything perl'ish should be named "perl-something". Yes, they should definitely be built from the main spec and the same source rpm, since they're all in the same source tarball. If naming is the only issue here, then simply use '%package -n perl-pcp-something'. The -n says "don't prepend the main package name to this". Do teh same for %description, %files, etc. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list [email protected] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
