https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065490 --- Comment #11 from Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #10) > (In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #9) > > This package is far from being clean and should never have been approved. > > > > * MUSTFIX: Missing BRs: > > perl(Exporter) > > perl(XSLoader) > > perl(strict) > > Requires BuildRequires!!! > perl(Exporter) > perl(XSLoader) > perl(strict) Right, that's the reason why they must also be BR'ed. The package would fail running during building (e.g. when running tests) if these are not present. > > * MUSTFIX: Missing BR: libsolv-devel > > The package links against libsolv.so and libsolvext.so > > I think it had been added. You are right, I missed it in this spec file's clutter. And while we're at it - This also doesn't make sense: BuildRequires: libdb4-devel ... %if 0%{?rhel_version} || 0%{?centos_version} BuildRequires: db4-devel %endif ... The second BuildRequires: db4-devel is redundant to the first one. > > * MUSTFIX: Missing BR: perl-devel > > The package links against libperl.so > > I can't see any regarding perl-devel, all except a note: ... > "Do not explicitly buildrequire "perl-devel" That's what I consider a bug in the FPG and in perl's packaging. But OK, then lets table this issue for now and stay with BR: perl -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review