https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829860 Iain Arnell <iarnell@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |iarnell@xxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |iarnell@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Iain Arnell <iarnell@xxxxxxxxx> --- Okay, I'll bite - if only because I live in a community called Evergreen and we don't have a public library system - maybe this will help ;) It's very promising that you noticed the arch-dependent nature of the package and came up with a solution. I had a similar issue with perl-Lingua-EN-Tagger which I resolved by making the whole package arch-dependent, passing INSTALLVENDORLIB=%{perl_vendorarch} to Makefile.PL so that the whole package gets installed under %{_libdir}/perl5/vendor_perl. And since this approach avoids conflicts entirely, I guess it counts as a better recommended practice. You're quite right that rpmlint's no-binary "error" can be ignored in this case, but we also build debuginfo packages and rpmlint also complains about empty-debuginfo-package. In this case, it's appropriate to disable debuginfo package by adding %global debug_package %{nil} to the spec file. (see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Debuginfo for more info). Otherwise, it's a fairly simple package. There's just a few minor issues: you don't need to specify the BuildRoot tag - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag you don't need to explicitly Require: perl(Unicode::Normalize) - rpm detects this dependency automatically. you should explicitly BuildRequire any dependencies that are part of perl-core itself - although they're pulled in as transient dependencies at the minute, they might not be in future (the Red Hat perl folks tend to pretty insistent on this): perl(base) perl(Carp) perl(charnames) perl(constant) perl(Encode) perl(POSIX) perl(Storable) perl(strict) perl(Unicode::Normalize) perl(Unicode::UCD) perl(warnings) And as a sponsor, it would also be nice to see a couple of informal reviews of other packages. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group -- 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