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=759757 --- Comment #2 from Xavier Bachelot <xavier@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2012-01-05 11:28:28 EST --- Thanks for the review, Petr. Comments for FIX and TODO inline. Spec URL: http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SPECS/perl-Encode-EUCJPASCII.spec SRPM URL: http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SRPMS/perl-Encode-EUCJPASCII-0.03-2.fc15.src.rpm (In reply to comment #1) > TODO: Remove useless BuildRoot definition, it's cleaning in %install section, > and whole %clean section. They are not needed anymore. > Needed for EPEL5, so I'd rather keep them. > TODO: Build-require perl(Encode) for tests (EUCJPASCII.pm:6) > TODO: Build-require perl(XSLoader) for tests (EUCJPASCII.pm:7) > TODO: Build-require perl(base) for tests (EUCJPASCII.pm:18) > TODO: Build-require perl(Encode::CJKConstants) for tests (EUCJPASCII.pm:23) > TODO: Build-require perl(Encode::JP::JIS7) for tests (EUCJPASCII.pm:23) > Added. > FIX: Build-require perl(File::Spec) (Makefile.PL:18) > Added. > TODO: Remove useless %defattr from %files section. > Needed for EPEL5. > FIX: Remove empty *.bs files. (These empty bootstrap files for DynaLoader are > useless.) > Done. The spec is now following more closely the perl spec template, while the previous version was generated with cpanspec. I've compared the build log from both the older spec and the newer with the BuildRequires added, but I don't see a difference, so I'm a bit puzzled... Are the BRs really needed ? -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review