https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123268 Petr Šabata <psabata@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |psabata@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #11 from Petr Šabata <psabata@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Parag, The guidelines haven't been updated as the Perl SIG hasn't reached concensus on how to handle this yet. Sadly, whenever brought up, the disucssion gets stalled pretty quickly. David, Indeed, BR'ing not yet dual-lived core modules is optional. Of course, this just means more work as both the packager and the reviewer need to check whether a) the module is currently in core and b) the module isn't dual-lived in Fedora. This needs to be done for all the Fedora releases the package is intended to be in and not just for the review but continuously during the package's lifetime. Lubomir, I'd drop META.json from %doc. -- 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