https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1419027 --- Comment #2 from Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Jitka Plesnikova from comment #1) > Source file is ok > Summary is ok > Description is ok > URL and Source0 are ok > All tests passed > > BuildRequires > FIX: Please remove duplicity in BR unversioned 'perl(Exporter::Tiny)' > FIX: Please add build-requires: > - perl(Moose::Util::TypeConstraints) - t/02moosextypes.t:32 > - perl(constant) - t/04nots.t:32 Done. > $ rpm -qp --requires perl-Type-Tie-0.009-1.fc26.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c > 1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.24.1) > 1 perl(:VERSION) >= 5.8.5 > 1 perl(Carp) > 1 perl(Exporter::Tiny) > 1 perl(Tie::Array) > 1 perl(Tie::Hash) > 1 perl(Tie::Scalar) > 1 perl(strict) > 1 perl(warnings) > 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 > > FIX: Please add run-require 'perl(Data::Dumper)' - Tie.pm:100 Done, but ... shall I file a bug against perl-generators? > License - most of the files are under "GPL+ or Artistic". However, > COPYRIGHT has different license. See COPYRIGHT:29-33 > FIX: Please add license 'Public Domain' No, I not going to do this. This perl-dist is clearly licenced "Perl" (== GPL+ or Artistic), using the "Perl" license as an umbrella to files under other compatible licenses (c.f. README). The fact it also contains files licensed PD is irrelevant. Update: Spec URL: https://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Type-Tie.spec SRPM URL: https://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Type-Tie-0.009-2.fc26.src.rpm -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx