Bug 1409866

Feedback received for the perl-X10 package applies to this package as well.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409869#c1

changes mentioned in that comment have been implemented.

specfile: https://github.com/knnniggett/specfiles/blob/master/perl-Astro-SunTime.spec

srpm: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/kni/zoneminder_deps/fedora-25-x86_64/00495155-perl-Astro-SunTime/perl-Astro-SunTime-0.01-4.fc25.src.rpm

Next time, please link to raw spec file. Not an HTML document.

URL and Source addresses are usable. Ok.
Source archive is original (SHA-256: 29b190112117c50ef08d02caedb3c325af48fad3e5a8d195a38cec0470e235d0). Ok.

FIX: Do not undefine the %debug_package macro. debuginfo packages are not created for noarch packages by default.

FIX: The summary text is poor. Instead of naming modules the package contains it should summaries purpose of the package. For example `Sun rise and set times'.

Description verified from README. Ok.

TODO: I think the `perl' in the description text should be spelled as `Perl' because it's a name of a programming language. `perl' denotes the Perl interpreter, a command for executing /usr/bin/perl.

FIX: There is no license text or disclaimer in the sources. Where did you find that `GPL+ or Artistic' applies? In case there is no license defined in the sources, one has to contact author of the sources and ask him/her for clarification. If the author does not release a new version that will include the license, the author's clarification (e.g. an e-mail response with all e-mail headers) must be added to the package using %license macro in the %files section. If author does not provide any clarification acceptable by Fedora legal team, the package cannot be distributed withing Fedora distribution because copyright law denies redistributing copyrighted material by default.


The missing license is a fatal problem and I would stop the review now until resolving it. But because you are newbie, I will continue and show you what other deficiencies should be fixed in this package.

No XS code, noarch BuildArch is Ok.

TODO: You can simplify the find command in the %install section like this:

  find %{buildroot} -type f -name .packlist -delete

Otherwise you should build-require `coreutils' because you execute `rm' command provided by coreutils package.

TODO: Do not package `MANIFEST' file. It has no meaning in RPM package, it's used only by CPAN site.

TODO: Do not package `test.pl' file. We normally do not package tests as they are not needed at run time. We package them as a documentation if there is not any better documentation. This package does not have any documentation, but the test.pl actually does not show any usage of Astro::SunTime API, so it'd not good as as a documentation as well.

FIX: Build-require `perl' because you execute perl in perl-Astro-SunTime.spec at lines 17 and 26.

FIX: Build-require `findutils' (perl-Astro-SunTime.spec:32).
FIX: Build-require `coreutils' (perl-Astro-SunTime.spec:32).

FIX: Build-require these Perl modules because they are used when executing tests:

`perl(POSIX)' (SunTime.pm:10)
`perl(strict)' (SunTime.pm:12)
`perl(Time::ParseDate)' (SunTime.pm:9)
`perl(vars)' (SunTime.pm:2).

You can use `tangerine' tool the scan the sources for used Perl modules. You can verify the modules are used by mangling their identifiers to non-existing modules in the sources and than executing `make test'.

All tests pass. Ok.

$ rpmlint perl-Astro-SunTime.spec ../SRPMS/perl-Astro-SunTime-0.01-4.fc26.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Astro-SunTime-0.01-4.fc26.noarch.rpm 
perl-Astro-SunTime.spec:8: W: non-standard-group Applications/CPAN
perl-Astro-SunTime.spec:48: W: macro-in-%changelog %check
perl-Astro-SunTime.src: E: description-line-too-long C Astro::SunTime perl module provides a function interface to calculate sun rise/set times.
perl-Astro-SunTime.src: W: non-standard-group Applications/CPAN
perl-Astro-SunTime.src:48: W: macro-in-%changelog %check
perl-Astro-SunTime.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Astro::SunTime perl module provides a function interface to calculate sun rise/set times.
perl-Astro-SunTime.noarch: W: non-standard-group Applications/CPAN
perl-Astro-SunTime.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.03-4 ['0.01-4.fc26', '0.01-4']
perl-Astro-SunTime.noarch: W: manifest-in-perl-module /usr/share/doc/perl-Astro-SunTime/MANIFEST
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings.

FIX: Change the Group tag value to one enumerated in /usr/share/doc/rpm/GROUPS (`Development/Libraries' probably) or remove the tag because it's deprecated in Fedora.
FIX: Escape `%' character in the %changelog by another per-cent character.
FIX: Correct version number for the latest %changelog entry to match Version tag.

$ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Astro-SunTime-0.01-4.fc26.noarch.rpm
drwxr-xr-x    2 root    root                        0 Jan  4 13:55 /usr/share/doc/perl-Astro-SunTime
-rw-r--r--    1 root    root                      105 Nov  8  1999 /usr/share/doc/perl-Astro-SunTime/Changes
-rw-r--r--    1 root    root                       55 Dec 13  1999 /usr/share/doc/perl-Astro-SunTime/MANIFEST
-rw-r--r--    1 root    root                       80 Dec 13  1999 /usr/share/doc/perl-Astro-SunTime/README
-rw-r--r--    1 root    root                      659 Nov  8  1999 /usr/share/doc/perl-Astro-SunTime/test.pl
drwxr-xr-x    2 root    root                        0 Jan  4 13:55 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Astro
-r--r--r--    1 root    root                     2920 Nov  8  1999 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Astro/SunTime.pm
File layout and permissions is Ok.

$ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Astro-SunTime-0.01-4.fc26.noarch.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c
      1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.24.0)
      1 perl(POSIX)
      1 perl(strict)
      1 perl(Time::ParseDate)
      1 perl(vars)
      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
Binary requires are Ok.

$ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Astro-SunTime-0.01-4.fc26.noarch.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c
      1 perl(Astro::SunTime) = 0.01
      1 perl-Astro-SunTime = 0.01-4.fc26
Binary provides are Ok.

$ resolvedeps rawhide ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Astro-SunTime-0.01-4.fc26.noarch.rpm
Binary dependencies resolvable. Ok.

Package builds in F26 (https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=17161871). Ok.

Otherwise the package is in line with Fedora and Perl packaging guidelines.

Please correct all `FIX' items, consider fixing `TODO' items and provide updated spec file.
Resolution: Package NOT approved.

Hi Petr,
Thank you for taking the time to produce such a thorough review. This will definitely help me write better specfiles moving forward. It will take me a bit to go through all of these in finer detail, but you can expect these all to get fixed.

Thanks for the heads up regarding the tangerine tool. I was wondering if there was good way to know exactly what packages are needed when performing a perl test during the build.

My apologies for leaving %debug_package macro in there. That was a quick fix to allow the build to succeed... before I discovered the root cause was really a missing "BuildArch: noarch".

The summary & License text came directly from cpanspec Astro::SunTime
But I will certainly change either if they aren't right. I get it. cpanspec is just a program, which makes some best-guess assumptions. We need to be smarter than that.

I'll contact the author of the perl module about the missing license text immediately.

(In reply to Andrew Bauer from comment #3)
> 
> I'll contact the author of the perl module about the missing license text
> immediately.
Andrew,
Before you mentioned you would like to submit those packages to Fedora I already contacted author and he promised me to include license files to both packages (X110 & Astro::SunTime). If you prefer I can forward to you response from the author.

Thanks for the help Damian. Yes, I'd appreciate if you could forward his response to me. Seems I went to the same college as the author so I may contact him simply for nostalgia.

(In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #2)
> Next time, please link to raw spec file. Not an HTML document.

Understood.

> FIX: Do not undefine the %debug_package macro. debuginfo packages are not
> created for noarch packages by default.

Completed.

> 
> FIX: The summary text is poor. Instead of naming modules the package
> contains it should summaries purpose of the package. For example `Sun rise
> and set times'.

Summary text updated to state "Calculates sun rise/set times"
> 
> TODO: I think the `perl' in the description text should be spelled as `Perl'
> because it's a name of a programming language. `perl' denotes the Perl
> interpreter, a command for executing /usr/bin/perl.

Understood. Perl has been capitalized.

> 
> FIX: There is no license text or disclaimer in the sources. Where did you
> find that `GPL+ or Artistic' applies? In case there is no license defined in
> the sources, one has to contact author of the sources and ask him/her for
> clarification. If the author does not release a new version that will
> include the license, the author's clarification (e.g. an e-mail response
> with all e-mail headers) must be added to the package using %license macro
> in the %files section. If author does not provide any clarification
> acceptable by Fedora legal team, the package cannot be distributed withing
> Fedora distribution because copyright law denies redistributing copyrighted
> material by default.

Author responded favorably and has added a GPLv3 header to the source files in his development branch on github. Specfile updated to reflect GPLv3. 
See below for further comment.

> 
> 
> The missing license is a fatal problem and I would stop the review now until
> resolving it. But because you are newbie, I will continue and show you what
> other deficiencies should be fixed in this package.


Thank you. This has been very helpful.

> TODO: You can simplify the find command in the %install section like this:
> 
>   find %{buildroot} -type f -name .packlist -delete
> 
> Otherwise you should build-require `coreutils' because you execute `rm'
> command provided by coreutils package.

Changed to using the "-delete" flag

> 
> TODO: Do not package `MANIFEST' file. It has no meaning in RPM package, it's
> used only by CPAN site.

Understood. MANIFEST has been removed.

> 
> TODO: Do not package `test.pl' file. We normally do not package tests as
> they are not needed at run time. We package them as a documentation if there
> is not any better documentation. This package does not have any
> documentation, but the test.pl actually does not show any usage of
> Astro::SunTime API, so it'd not good as as a documentation as well.

Thank you for the explanation. I had used perl-GD-Barcode.spec from the Fedora repo as an example to follow, but based on your statement I will take that case as the exception, rather than the norm. test.pl removed.

> 
> FIX: Build-require `perl' because you execute perl in
> perl-Astro-SunTime.spec at lines 17 and 26.
> 

Done.

> FIX: Build-require `findutils' (perl-Astro-SunTime.spec:32).
> FIX: Build-require `coreutils' (perl-Astro-SunTime.spec:32).
> 

Added findutils. Skipped coreutils since I previously changed the syntax of the find statement.

> FIX: Build-require these Perl modules because they are used when executing
> tests:
> 
> `perl(POSIX)' (SunTime.pm:10)
> `perl(strict)' (SunTime.pm:12)
> `perl(Time::ParseDate)' (SunTime.pm:9)
> `perl(vars)' (SunTime.pm:2).
> 

These have been added

> You can use `tangerine' tool the scan the sources for used Perl modules. You
> can verify the modules are used by mangling their identifiers to
> non-existing modules in the sources and than executing `make test'.
> 

Ah, so this is the magic that determines this. Very good to know.

> All tests pass. Ok.
> 
> $ rpmlint perl-Astro-SunTime.spec
> ../SRPMS/perl-Astro-SunTime-0.01-4.fc26.src.rpm
> ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Astro-SunTime-0.01-4.fc26.noarch.rpm 
> perl-Astro-SunTime.spec:8: W: non-standard-group Applications/CPAN
> perl-Astro-SunTime.spec:48: W: macro-in-%changelog %check
> perl-Astro-SunTime.src: E: description-line-too-long C Astro::SunTime perl
> module provides a function interface to calculate sun rise/set times.
> perl-Astro-SunTime.src: W: non-standard-group Applications/CPAN
> perl-Astro-SunTime.src:48: W: macro-in-%changelog %check
> perl-Astro-SunTime.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Astro::SunTime
> perl module provides a function interface to calculate sun rise/set times.
> perl-Astro-SunTime.noarch: W: non-standard-group Applications/CPAN
> perl-Astro-SunTime.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.03-4
> ['0.01-4.fc26', '0.01-4']
> perl-Astro-SunTime.noarch: W: manifest-in-perl-module
> /usr/share/doc/perl-Astro-SunTime/MANIFEST
> 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings.
> 
> FIX: Change the Group tag value to one enumerated in
> /usr/share/doc/rpm/GROUPS (`Development/Libraries' probably) or remove the
> tag because it's deprecated in Fedora.

Since my goal is to get this package in EPEL 6 & 7, in addition to Fedora, I set the Group to Development/Libraries, rather than remove it.

> FIX: Escape `%' character in the %changelog by another per-cent character.
> FIX: Correct version number for the latest %changelog entry to match Version
> tag.
> 

Corrected.

> Please correct all `FIX' items, consider fixing `TODO' items and provide
> updated spec file.
> Resolution: Package NOT approved.

Regarding the recent addition of the license text by the author, this was done in a development branch in his git repo, but has not yet part of a new release not has it been pushed to CPAN:
https://github.com/fugina-hackery/perl-astro-suntime/commit/139224b051f3d3f7992dc3d9a2f5a4d35be9284f

While I could get the source files from git, rather than cpan, I don't believe that is the correct thing to do in this case. Instead, I'll wait until a new release appears in CPAN. I will update this bugzilla at that time. Let me know if there are any acceptable alternatives.

specfile w/ no html formatting: 
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/knnniggett/specfiles/master/perl-Astro-SunTime.spec

srpm:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/kni/zoneminder_deps/fedora-25-x86_64/00496154-perl-Astro-SunTime/perl-Astro-SunTime-0.01-5.fc25.src.rpm

No complaints from rpmlint:

$ rpmlint /home/abauer/rpmbuild/SRPMS/perl-Astro-SunTime-0.01-5.fc25.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint /home/abauer/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/perl-Astro-SunTime-0.01-5.fc25.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint perl-Astro-SunTime.spec ../SRPMS/perl-Astro-SunTime-0.01-5.fc26.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Astro-SunTime-0.01-5.fc26.noarch.rpm 
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Package builds in F26 (https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=17178039). Ok.

Thank you for improving the package. Now the only remaining issue is the license. I think there are three options:

(1) Wait for a new release.

(2) Package a snapshot from the Git repository.

(3) Obtain a permission from the author. This means adding the e-mail reply about this package's license as Damian offered.

There also could be fourth option and that's author's statement in his Git repository. I'm not a lawyer, but there had already been similar case accepted by Fedora legal <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1381888#c2>.

But in this case I cannot find any clear link between the released code on the CPAN <http://search.cpan.org/~robf/Astro-SunTime-0.01/> and the Git repository <https://github.com/fugina-hackery/perl-astro-suntime>. The only common thing is the author's name, even the e-mail address does not match.

Therefore I don't think the fourth option is acceptable.

If you want, you can wait for the new release, though getting the permission via Damian could be quicker.

This is just a ping to let you know I am coordinating with the author on both this module and the perl-x10 module. There were some other small changes that needed fixing, which would have certainly come up during a package review. These issues have just been resolved, and I am hopeful to get this review request resolved soon.

The author has just pushed a new release of the perl-Astro-Suntime module to cpan, and I have built new rpm off the new version.

The GPL 3 license has been embedded into the source code and the README.

The 0.05 release of this module contains some additional perl tests, which require perl(Test) added as a buildrequires.

new specfile: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/knnniggett/specfiles/master/perl-Astro-SunTime.spec

new srpm: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/kni/zoneminder_deps/fedora-26-x86_64/00502111-perl-Astro-SunTime/perl-Astro-SunTime-0.05-1.fc26.src.rpm

rpmlint reports no errors or warnings:
$ rpmlint /home/abauer/rpmbuild/SRPMS/perl-Astro-SunTime-0.05-1.fc25.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint /home/abauer/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/perl-Astro-SunTime-0.05-1.fc25.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

As far as I am aware, this completes all the changes which were requested. Thank you for your patience.

This is a rebase, a complete new review follows.

URL and Source0 address are usable. Ok.
Source archive is original (SHA-256: 83f3d276849107b9f4fbef20d3d2849e3c751d751cfdfa67316470e9974543a7). Ok.
Summary is Ok.
Description is Ok.
License verified from SunTime.pm and README. Ok.
Build-time dependencies are Ok.
All tests pass. Ok.

$ rpmlint perl-Astro-SunTime.spec ../SRPMS/perl-Astro-SunTime-0.05-1.fc26.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Astro-SunTime-0.05-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint is Ok.

$ rpm -q -l -v -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Astro-SunTime-0.05-1.fc26.noarch.rpm 
drwxr-xr-x    2 root    root                        0 Jan 23 10:22 /usr/share/doc/perl-Astro-SunTime
-rw-r--r--    1 root    root                      192 Jan  3 23:43 /usr/share/doc/perl-Astro-SunTime/Changes
-rw-r--r--    1 root    root                      288 Jan 20 19:20 /usr/share/doc/perl-Astro-SunTime/README
drwxr-xr-x    2 root    root                        0 Jan 23 10:22 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Astro
-r--r--r--    1 root    root                     3723 Jan 20 19:20 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Astro/SunTime.pm
File layout and permissions are Ok.

$ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Astro-SunTime-0.05-1.fc26.noarch.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c
      1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.24.1)
      1 perl(POSIX)
      1 perl(strict)
      1 perl(vars)
      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/perl-Astro-SunTime-0.05-1.fc26.noarch.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c
      1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.24.1)
      1 perl(POSIX)
      1 perl(strict)
      1 perl(vars)
      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 `perl(Time::ParseDate)' is missing from run-time dependencies. The code loads it optionally, but without having the module installed, the code crashes:

$ perl -Iblib/lib -e "use Astro::SunTime; sun_time(type => 'rise', latitude => 40, longitude => -77, time_zone => -5, date => '1 Jan 1970')"
Undefined subroutine &Astro::SunTime::parsedate called at blib/lib/Astro/SunTime.pm line 41.

Therefere I recommend to run-require it explicitly. Or you can make the run-time dependency optional by using `Recommends:' instead of `Requires:' keyword.

$ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Astro-SunTime-0.05-1.fc26.noarch.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c
      1 perl(Astro::SunTime) = 0.05
      1 perl-Astro-SunTime = 0.05-1.fc26
Binary provides are Ok.

$ resolvedeps rawhide ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Astro-SunTime-0.05-1.fc26.noarch.rpm 
Binary dependencies resolvable. Ok.

Package builds in F26 (https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=17389376). Ok.

Package is in line with Fedora and Perl packaging guidelines.
Please consider fixing the `TODO' item before building this package.
Resolution: Package APPROVED.

The requested change has been completed. The package now pulls in time::parsedate due to the manual requires.

$ rpm -q --requires -p /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/perl-Astro-SunTime-0.05-2.fc26.noarch.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c
      1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.24.1)
      1 perl(POSIX)
      1 perl(strict)
      1 perl(Time::ParseDate)
      1 perl(vars)
      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

new specfile: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/knnniggett/specfiles/master/perl-Astro-SunTime.spec

new srpm: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/kni/zoneminder_deps/fedora-26-x86_64/00502924-perl-Astro-SunTime/perl-Astro-SunTime-0.05-2.fc26.src.rpm

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/perl-Astro-SunTime

perl-Astro-SunTime-0.05-2.el6 perl-Astro-SunTime-0.05-2.el6 perl-Astro-SunTime-0.05-2.el6 perl-Astro-SunTime-0.05-2.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-39d372dc15

perl-Astro-SunTime-0.05-2.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-820c75f0c5

perl-Astro-SunTime-0.05-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-93b072d4fd

perl-Astro-SunTime-0.05-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-5bfcccedd5

perl-Astro-SunTime-0.05-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-5bfcccedd5

perl-Astro-SunTime-0.05-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-39d372dc15

perl-Astro-SunTime-0.05-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-820c75f0c5

perl-Astro-SunTime-0.05-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-93b072d4fd

perl-Astro-SunTime-0.05-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

perl-Astro-SunTime-0.05-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

perl-Astro-SunTime-0.05-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

perl-Astro-SunTime-0.05-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

(In reply to Andrew Bauer from comment #6)
> (In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #2)
> > FIX: Change the Group tag value to one enumerated in
> > /usr/share/doc/rpm/GROUPS (`Development/Libraries' probably) or remove the
> > tag because it's deprecated in Fedora.
> 
> Since my goal is to get this package in EPEL 6 & 7, in addition to Fedora, I
> set the Group to Development/Libraries, rather than remove it.

Just as a point of interest, the last EL release that required spec files to have Group: tags was EL-5; it's not actually needed for EL-6 onwards.