https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116487 --- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar <ppisar@xxxxxxxxxx> --- URL and Source0 are usable. Ok. Source tar ball is original (SHA-256: 02eeb8e0a98d9ee1016fbfd6c5fdc658f379e9e9ea57936e3889701563b105b3). Ok. Summary is Ok. Description verified from lib/App/DuckDuckGo.pm. Ok. License verified from lib/App/DuckDuckGo.pm, bin/duckduckgo, LICENSE, README. Ok. No XS code, noarch BuildArch is Ok. TODO: I recommend to package the LICENSE file into duckduckgo sub-package too. Because is does not run-require a specific version of the main package, it can happen an user gets installed different versions of the the sub-packages which can differ in the license. (If upstream decides to change the license). FIX: Do not build-require `perl(Test::Pod)' as the module is never used (t/release-pod-syntax.t:4). All tests pass. Ok. $ rpmlint perl-App-DuckDuckGo.spec ../SRPMS/perl-App-DuckDuckGo-0.008-1.fc22.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/perl-App-DuckDuckGo-0.008-1.fc22.noarch.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/duckduckgo-0.008-1.fc22.noarch.rpm duckduckgo.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary C DuckDuckGo 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. rpmlint is Ok. $ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-App-DuckDuckGo-0.008-1.fc22.noarch.rpm drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Jul 16 14:48 /usr/share/doc/perl-App-DuckDuckGo -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 688 Apr 18 2013 /usr/share/doc/perl-App-DuckDuckGo/Changes -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 18437 Apr 18 2013 /usr/share/doc/perl-App-DuckDuckGo/LICENSE -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 329 Apr 18 2013 /usr/share/doc/perl-App-DuckDuckGo/README -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2174 Jul 16 14:48 /usr/share/man/man3/App::DuckDuckGo.3pm.gz drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Jul 16 14:48 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/App -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 7080 Apr 18 2013 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/App/DuckDuckGo.pm $ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/noarch/duckduckgo-0.008-1.fc22.noarch.rpm -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1734 Jul 16 14:48 /usr/bin/duckduckgo drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Jul 16 14:48 /usr/share/doc/duckduckgo -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 329 Apr 18 2013 /usr/share/doc/duckduckgo/README -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2534 Jul 16 14:48 /usr/share/man/man1/duckduckgo.1.gz File layout and permissions are Ok. $ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-App-DuckDuckGo-0.008-1.fc22.noarch.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.18.2) 1 perl(Moose) >= 1.24 1 perl(MooseX::Getopt) >= 0.35 1 perl(WWW::DuckDuckGo) >= 0.004 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 $ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/noarch/duckduckgo-0.008-1.fc22.noarch.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 /usr/bin/env 1 perl(App::DuckDuckGo) 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 TODO: The /usr/bin/env scripts interpreter is considered harmful by some packageres. It would be nice to replace it with `#!%{_perl}' (or `#!perl' which ExtUtils::MakeMaker fixes automatically). $ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-App-DuckDuckGo-0.008-1.fc22.noarch.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 perl(App::DuckDuckGo) = 0.008 1 perl-App-DuckDuckGo = 0.008-1.fc22 $ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/noarch/duckduckgo-0.008-1.fc22.noarch.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 duckduckgo = 0.008-1.fc22 Binary provides are Ok. $ resolvedeps rawhide ../RPMS/noarch/perl-App-DuckDuckGo-0.008-1.fc22.noarch.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/duckduckgo-0.008-1.fc22.noarch.rpm Binary dependencies resolvable. Ok. Package builds in F22 (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7151001). Ok. Otherwise the package is in line with Fedora and Perl packaging guidelines. Please correct all `FIX' issues, consider fixing `TODO' items, and provide new SPEC file. Resolution: Package NOT approved. -- 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