You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Good for comparison with an existing .spec file. This template would not have any "begginers" / "helper" entries with (unnecessary) comments, and also no disabled BuildRequires, and rspec spec in %check (it would be all uncommented instead). The goal would be to approximate as closely as possible the actual working specfile.
Significant amount of logic could be added as well (like "no coverage" tools in BuildRequires, and packaging upstream test suite f.e.).
Like an "update" template.
Good for comparison with an existing
.spec
file. This template would not have any "begginers" / "helper" entries with (unnecessary) comments, and also no disabledBuildRequires
, andrspec spec
in%check
(it would be all uncommented instead). The goal would be to approximate as closely as possible the actual working specfile.Significant amount of logic could be added as well (like "no coverage" tools in
BuildRequires
, and packaging upstream test suite f.e.).WDYT?
Triggered by: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-xpath/pull-request/2#comment-52582
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: