https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=980222
Petr Šabata <psabata(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Petr Šabata <psabata(a)redhat.com> ---
(In reply to John C Peterson from comment #2)
Glad to help :)
I think I have addressed those issues in release two above.
I was indeed going to push this back to EPEL at some point. I don't like the
look of the "rm -rf %{buildroot}" either, so I put those inside ?rhel
conditionals. (Heaven forbid if %{buildroot} were "/" !!!)
The conditionals aren't necessary and I'd say they make the spec even uglier.
Also the chances of %buildroot being something terribly wrong and the user
doing the build having the permissions to do any damage there are really low.
And if that happens, it's their own fault ;)
I'm perhaps a little out of touch with building for EPEL, so I
wasn't sure
about an explicit Buildroot: ... definition. I had already removed the one
that cpanspec had put in there. (I was under the impression that's not
needed anymore, even for EPEL).
You will need it for EPEL5.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging
See the other relevant sections of EPEL guidelines too. You won't need much
for EPEL6 only.
I'm a bit surprised that cpanspec missed all of those build
dependencies.
I'll know to perform my own search of the code for missed build dependencies
in the future.
The stable versions of cpanspec only look into the META.* files which often
don't contain much (or correct) information. I'm currently working on a
better, PPI-based dependency detection but peeking at the code will always be
the best option.
Anyhow, the package conforms to the guidelines now. Approving.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=g9nvGHjTT3&a=cc_unsubscribe