https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316664 --- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar <ppisar@xxxxxxxxxx> --- URL and Source0 addresses are usable. Ok. Source archive is original (SHA-256: 64cdf8172568fe4fa689f01c83b54d2471ff7f293ec3d71ba83153204a90550e). Ok. Summary verified from lib/List/SomeUtils/XS.pm. Ok. Description verified from lib/List/SomeUtils/XS.pm. TODO: I had bad feeling about the description. It describes internal representation that is not relevant to binary RPM package (perl-List-SomeUtils binary RPM does not check for a compiler etc.). I would rather see the description rewritten from point of view of packaged software. Or just a simple notice that the package delivers accelerated List::SomeUtils internals. FIX: Artistic 2.0 license verified from README.md, lib/List/SomeUtils/XS.pm, LICENSE. But there is the bundled ppport.h (GPL+ or Artistic) that is compiled into the binary file. I think correct license tag is "Artistic 2.0 and (GPL+ or Artistic)". Architecture specific package because of XS code. Ok. blib not used. Ok. IO::Handle not used. Ok. IPC::Open3 not used. Ok. Pod::Coverage::TrustPod not used. Ok. Pod::Wordlist not used. Ok. Scalar::Util is optional. Ok. Storable is optional. Ok. Test::Code::TidyAll not used. Ok. Test::CPAN::Changes not used. Ok. Test::CPAN::Meta::JSON not used. Ok. Test::EOL not used. Ok. Test::LeakTrace is optional. Ok. Test::Mojibake not used. Ok. Test::NoTabs not used. Ok. Test::Pod not used. Ok. Test::Pod::Coverage not used. Ok. Test::Spelling not used. Ok. Test::Synopsis not used. Ok. Test::Version not used. Ok. All tests pass. Ok. $ rpmlint perl-List-SomeUtils-XS.spec ../SRPMS/perl-List-SomeUtils-XS-0.51-1.fc25.src.rpm ../RPMS/x86_64/perl-List-SomeUtils-XS-* 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint is Ok. $ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/x86_64/perl-List-SomeUtils-XS-0.51-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Mar 24 16:10 /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/List drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Mar 24 16:10 /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/List/SomeUtils -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2138 Feb 27 17:45 /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/List/SomeUtils/XS.pm drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Mar 24 16:10 /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/List drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Mar 24 16:10 /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/List/SomeUtils drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Mar 24 16:10 /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/List/SomeUtils/XS -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 135056 Mar 24 16:10 /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/List/SomeUtils/XS/XS.so drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Mar 24 16:10 /usr/share/doc/perl-List-SomeUtils-XS -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 146 Feb 27 17:45 /usr/share/doc/perl-List-SomeUtils-XS/Changes -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1126 Feb 27 17:45 /usr/share/doc/perl-List-SomeUtils-XS/README.md drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Mar 24 16:10 /usr/share/licenses/perl-List-SomeUtils-XS -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 9040 Feb 27 17:45 /usr/share/licenses/perl-List-SomeUtils-XS/LICENSE -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1657 Mar 24 16:10 /usr/share/man/man3/List::SomeUtils::XS.3pm.gz File layout and permissions are Ok. $ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/x86_64/perl-List-SomeUtils-XS-0.51-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 libc.so.6()(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) 1 libperl.so.5.22()(64bit) 1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.22.1) 1 perl(:VERSION) >= 5.6.0 1 perl(List::SomeUtils::PP) 1 perl(strict) 1 perl(warnings) 1 perl(XSLoader) 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 1 rtld(GNU_HASH) Binary requires are Ok. $ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/x86_64/perl-List-SomeUtils-XS-0.51-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 perl(List::SomeUtils::XS) = 0.51 1 perl-List-SomeUtils-XS = 0.51-1.fc25 1 perl-List-SomeUtils-XS(x86-64) = 0.51-1.fc25 Binary provides are Ok. $ resolvedeps rawhide ../RPMS/x86_64/perl-List-SomeUtils-XS-0.51-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm Binary dependencies resolvable. Ok. Package builds in F25 (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13448202). Ok. Otherwise the package is in line with Fedora and Perl packaging guidelines. Please correct all `FIX' items, consider fixing `TODO' items, and provide a 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