https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062942 --- Comment #14 from Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Fabio Alessandro Locati from comment #13) > Thanks to Jon and Ralf suggestions and examples, I've just created a new > spec file. > 1. is complains about Test::Pod::Coverage and therefore does not use it for > the test (so it could be removed, since is no use) Well upstream seems a bit silly or they are simply unable to cope with it ;) I'd recommend to keep Test::Pod::Coverage, just in case upstream once should able to cope with it, however I am also OK with leaving out, because Pod-tests are not much of importance. > 2. The package perl-Test-TempDir is not available in EPEL5, EPEL6 and EPEL7, > so this entry could be removed (used only for the 03-file test) to grant > compilability in EL, at least until the package will be available. Well, my view is different: BR: perl(Test::TempDir) can omitted for EPEL* (until it should be available there), but it should not be omitted on Fedora. This can be achieved in 2 ways: 1. Either add an rpm conditional to BR it only on fedora, e.g. by adding something similar to this %{?fedora:BuildRequires: perl(Test::TempDir)} 2. Or by utilizing git after this package is imported in to Fedora's git. I.e. by removing "BuildRequires: perl(Test::TempDir)" from the spec on the corresponding epel branches in git. I for one would favor 2., because this allows to keep specs for newer distros free from backward-compatibility stuff (BuildRoot, rm -rf %buildroot, etc.) and keeps them simpler and easier readable - but this is just my personal preference. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review