https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830221 --- Comment #7 from Dan Scott <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Hmm. Actually, I think it should be BuildRequires: perl(Module::Build), not ExtUtils::MakeMaker for this one. One further problem - with the license as "GPL+ or Artistic or BSD", rpmlint complains with: perl-Library-CallNumber-LC.src: W: invalid-license Artistic It seems that, unfortunately, rpmlint doesn't recognize "GPL+ or Artistic" as a single name once "or BSD" is tacked on; it looks like each phrase separated by "or" is parsed as a separate license. And unfortunately, there is no "Artistic" license listed at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing - of the closest matches by name, "Artistic clarified" and "Artistic 2.0", their actual text doesn't match the text of the Artistic license as linked from http://dev.perl.org/licenses/ for the Perl "GPL+ or Artistic" entry in the licensing wiki. Time to call in Fedora Legal? Or time to teach rpmlint to try harder to match "GPL+ or Artistic" (and its variants) for the corner cases of tri-licensed software? In any case, I've updated http://bzr.coffeecode.net/scratch/perl-Library-CallNumber-LC/ with the new spec & srpm. -- 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