Taking for review.

It builds, but you need to add a libguestfs version
dep.  The current dep:

BuildRequires:  perl(Sys::Guestfs::Lib) >= 1.0.68

doesn't work.  It seems that perl() deps are unversioned
and therefore rpm will happily accept any version.
To make it fail properly on my old version of libguestfs
I had to add:

BuildRequires:  libguestfs >= 1:1.0.68
 ...
Requires:       libguestfs >= 1:1.0.68

Note also the epoch.

---

After making the above change (and installing the
requisite version of libguestfs), I was able to build
it locally.

Koji scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1660335

rpmlint is silent.

+ rpmlint output
+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines

Reporter doesn't think the Perl libraries are independently
useful, so they don't need to go in a separate package
and we don't need to follow the Perl naming guidelines
for that too closely.

+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines

(See above about Perl packaging guidelines, although the
package is broadly correct even for them).

+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
+ license matches the actual package license
+ %doc includes license file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ upstream sources match sources in the srpm
+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1660335

n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies

Koji build proves this.

+ %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*

Although commented out at the moment, however this is
correct for this package.

n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun
+ does not use Prefix: /usr
+ package owns all directories it creates
+ no duplicate files in %files
+ %defattr line
+ %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ consistent use of macros
+ package must contain code or permissible content
n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ files marked %doc should not affect package
n/a header files should be in -devel
n/a static libraries should be in -static
n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel
n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base
n/a packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc.
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8

Optional:

+ if there is no license file, packager should query upstream
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available
+ reviewer should build the package in mock
n/a the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
+ review should test the package functions as described
n/a scriptlets should be sane
n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel
+ shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin

========== APPROVED by rjones ==========

The only thing to do is to modify the spec file as in
comment 2.

(In reply to comment #2)
> It builds, but you need to add a libguestfs version
> dep.  The current dep:
> 
> BuildRequires:  perl(Sys::Guestfs::Lib) >= 1.0.68
> 
> doesn't work.  It seems that perl() deps are unversioned
Untrue. perl(..) are referring to a perl-module's version, not to the rpm's or the package's versions.

If a perl-module doesn't carry a version (from Perl's perspective), this perl module's version's rpm-representation, i.e. the perl(..) dep is unversioned.

(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > It builds, but you need to add a libguestfs version
> > dep.  The current dep:
> > 
> > BuildRequires:  perl(Sys::Guestfs::Lib) >= 1.0.68
> > 
> > doesn't work.  It seems that perl() deps are unversioned
> Untrue. perl(..) are referring to a perl-module's version, not to the rpm's or
> the package's versions.
> 
> If a perl-module doesn't carry a version (from Perl's perspective), this perl
> module's version's rpm-representation, i.e. the perl(..) dep is unversioned.  

OK, understood.  I opened a libguestfs bug to fix this:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521674

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: virt-v2v
Short Description: Convert a virtual machine to run on KVM
Owners: mdbooth 
Branches: F-11 F-12 EL-5
InitialCC:

Matthew: I don't see you in the packager group. Is this your first package?

Yes, it is.

So Matt needs sponsorship, is that right?

I'm now a member of the packager group. Rich is my sponsor.

(In reply to comment #8)
> Matthew: I don't see you in the packager group. Is this your first package?  

Kevin, is there anything else which Matt or I need to
do in order to get this package added to CVS?  I *think*
I've followed all the relevant rules from the wiki...

These are done by hand and occasionally it takes a bit for a human to find the time to run through the queue.

CVS done.

Can we get virtmaint added to cvs commit and bugzilla cc ? Thanks

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: virt-v2v
InitialCC: virtmaint

Mark,

I'm new to this. Do I have to do anything to make this happen? I don't see any flags set on the BZ, so I guess I do. Any idea what?

For cvs requests, you need to set the fedora-cvs flag to ? 

Since I was already CC'ed here, I went ahead and processed the request. ;) 
cvs done.

I'm pretty sure this bug should be closed now since
virt-v2v has been in Fedora for quite a long time.