https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875406 --- Comment #6 from Ken Dreyer <ktdreyer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- You're right about Data::Dumper being in core. I was mistakenly confusing it with other Perl modules that have been split out. However I can't picture the Perl core package maintainers splitting Data::Dumper out any time soon, so you're fine there and it won't block my review. If you can fix the License tag issue, then your package is basically set for review. Just post a new version of your spec and I'll do the formal review. Before I sponsor you, I'd like to see that you understand the packaging guidelines enough to review other people's packages. Have you done any other package reviews? You can just comment on any of the other package review bugs. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group Regarding EPEL: EPEL is a cool sub-project, and I encourage you to look into it. It is really no more work to maintain an EL branch than to maintain Fedora branches. That said, EPEL 5 and EPEL 6 are a bit different. RHEL 5 contains a very old version of RPM, so you have to include some extra bits of code in your spec files if you want them to build on RHEL 5. The cpanspec tool already includes these bits of code: In %install, the "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" line. In %clean, the "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" line. In %files, the "%defattr(-,root,root,-)" line. For EPEL 6 and all Fedora releases, you do not need to include these bits of code in your spec file. So, if you don't care about EPEL 5, you can remove them. That's why I bring it up. -- 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