I think you either need to now or will need to in the future file
bugs about the failures on !64 bit and ppc64*, see:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Architecture_Build_Failures

If you increase "BuildRequires:  perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) >= 5.16" version constraint to >= 6.76, you can add NO_PACKLIST=1 argument to perl Makefile.PL and remove the find command from %install section together with BuildRequires on coreutils and findutils. Also the "%exclude %{perl_archlib}/perllocal.pod" should be unnecessary.

I think the "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" command is not needed.

Could you please declare dependencies on all used Perl modules in Makefile.PL (strict, Config; ExtUtils::Constant or File::Copy and File::Spec)?

The same applies to modules used when running tests (./lib and ./t directories). We in Fedora declare all dependencies including CORE modules.

You can use "tangerine" tool from the same-named RPM package for rough estimation what modules could be used.

rpmlint output is:

Checking: perl-LMDB_File-0.12-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm
          perl-LMDB_File-debuginfo-0.12-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm
          perl-LMDB_File-debugsource-0.12-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm
          perl-LMDB_File-0.12-1.fc27.src.rpm
perl-LMDB_File.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
perl-LMDB_File.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
perl-LMDB_File-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources
perl-LMDB_File-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation
perl-LMDB_File-debugsource.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/src/debug/perl-LMDB_File-0.12-1.fc27.x86_64/LMDB.c
perl-LMDB_File-debugsource.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/src/debug/perl-LMDB_File-0.12-1.fc27.x86_64/ppport.h
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.

I believe these can all be ignored.

Package review says:

- Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
  Note: Explicit dependency on perl-devel is not allowed
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl
- Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
  Note: perl-LMDB_File-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/perl-
  LMDB_File-0.12-1.fc27.x86_64/ppport.h
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
  are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
  Note: These BR are not needed: coreutils findutils
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2

These do seem all to be errors.

I'll wait for you to update the package according to Petr's comments
above before I do the full review.

(In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #4)
> rpmlint output is:


(In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #5)
> Package review says:

How do you run these tools please? I run them too, but I dont have any warnings or errors.
Thanks.

$ rpmlint  --version
rpmlint version 1.10

$ fedora-review -V
fedora-review version 0.6.1

I don't understand what the previous comment means.

Anyway if you update the package with all changes needed so
far, then I will re-review it.

Could you post me how do you run rpmlint and package review on my package please? Because I cant reproduce your output from rpmlint and package review.

I ran ‘fedora-review -b 1510877’ on a Rawhide host.

Thanks, I fixed all except:

(In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #2)
> Also the "%exclude
> %{perl_archlib}/perllocal.pod" should be unnecessary.

error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
   /usr/lib64/perl5/perllocal.pod

(In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #5)
> - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
>   Note: perl-LMDB_File-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/perl-
>   LMDB_File-0.12-1.fc27.x86_64/ppport.h
>   See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages

According to fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl#.h_files_in_module_packages
These should stay in same package.

(In reply to Jakub Jančo from comment #10)
> Thanks, I fixed all except:
> 
> (In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #2)
> > Also the "%exclude
> > %{perl_archlib}/perllocal.pod" should be unnecessary.
> 
> error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
>    /usr/lib64/perl5/perllocal.pod
> 
This is because you do:

%install
%make_install

instead of:

%install
make pure_install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT

The "pure_install" target prevents from installing the perllocal.pod file.

(In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #11)
> (In reply to Jakub Jančo from comment #10)
> > Thanks, I fixed all except:
> > 
> > (In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #2)
> > > Also the "%exclude
> > > %{perl_archlib}/perllocal.pod" should be unnecessary.
> > 
> > error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
> >    /usr/lib64/perl5/perllocal.pod
> > 
> This is because you do:
> 
> %install
> %make_install
> 
> instead of:
> 
> %install
> make pure_install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> 
> The "pure_install" target prevents from installing the perllocal.pod file.

And another option is to pass NO_PERLLOCAL=1 argument to perl Makefile.PL and use the %make_install. See <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Perl/Tips#ExtUtils::MakeMaker>.

Can you post a link to the new spec file & SRPM, in the same format
as comment 0, so that fedora-review can pick it up.

(In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #12)
> And another option is to pass NO_PERLLOCAL=1 argument to perl Makefile.PL
> and use the %make_install. See
> <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Perl/Tips#ExtUtils::MakeMaker>.

Thanks, added NO_PERLLOCAL=1


(In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #13)
> Can you post a link to the new spec file & SRPM, in the same format
> as comment 0, so that fedora-review can pick it up.

These links in comment 0 are always current version.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
  Note: perl-LMDB_File-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/perl-
  LMDB_File-0.12-1.fc28.x86_64/ppport.h
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages

RWMJ: I think you can ignore this.  It seems to be a problem
with fedora-review itself.

===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[-]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[-]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.

RWMJ: This is fine, the file is only used by Perl's autoloader.

[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Artistic (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 18 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /var/tmp/rev/1510877-perl-LMDB_File/licensecheck.txt

RWMJ: The LICENSE file is Artistic.  The source files in the package
don't seem to contain any license text.  The License tag in the spec
file is "GPL+ or Artistic".  Is that correct?  There is no problem
with the license itself, it's all open source.

[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[?]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.

RWMJ: See above.

[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/.build-id(libvirt-
     daemon-driver-storage-logical, vim-common, nbdkit-plugin-file,
     python3-hawkey, ocaml-ocamlnet, ocaml-ocplib-simplex, systemtap-devel,
     abrt-python3, libfdisk, libvirt-daemon-driver-qemu, perl-hivex, abrt-
     retrace-client, evince, rpm-build-libs, libvirt-daemon-driver-
     nwfilter, libsmartcols, perl-Time-HiRes, perl-Sys-Guestfs, qemu-block-
     gluster, qemu-block-curl, ncurses-c++-libs, ocaml-zarith, gobject-
     introspection, gobject-introspection-devel, abrt, libsolv, gcc-
     gfortran, libguestfs-tools-c, mariadb-devel, satyr, zfs-fuse, perl-
     GSSAPI, perl-libs, atlas, qemu-block-nfs, gcc-c++, perl-Digest-CRC,
     perl-Unicode-Normalize, qemu-system-alpha-core, libvirt-daemon-driver-
     xen, systemd-libs, perl-Math-BigInt-FastCalc, perl-Socket, libvirt-
     daemon-driver-vbox, evince-djvu, perl-Sys-Syslog, libvirt-daemon-
     driver-storage-mpath, util-linux, ocaml-ounit, qemu-system-microblaze-
     core, abrt-addon-coredump-helper, qemu-system-s390x-core, qemu-user,
     qemu-system-arm-core, rpm-devel, rpm-build, device-mapper-persistent-
     data, perl-Sort-Key, qemu-block-rbd, PackageKit-glib, perl-
     TermReadKey, ruby-hivex, net-snmp-libs, perl-threads, dnsmasq, perl-
     Params-Validate, ocaml-num, supermin, ocaml-libvirt, perl-DB_File,
     perl-MIME-Base64, libvirt-daemon-driver-storage-sheepdog, perl-Scalar-
     List-Utils, rpm-plugin-systemd-inhibit, libblkid, perl-GD, ocaml-
     findlib, abrt-addon-pstoreoops, ghostscript-x11, texlive-xetex-bin,
     libgcc, libvirt-daemon-driver-storage-disk, libvirt-daemon-driver-
     storage-iscsi, perl-threads-shared, libspectre, perl-Compress-Bzip2,
     virt-v2v, qemu-block-ssh, perl-Encode, elfutils, ocaml-ocamldoc,
     device-mapper, poppler, lvm2-libs, ocaml-camlidl, perl-Digest-SHA,
     djvulibre-libs, device-mapper-event, perl-Params-Util, ghostscript-
     core, qemu-system-sparc-core, perl-Data-Dumper, perl-Devel-PPPort,
     libgxps, ocaml-labltk, qemu-system-moxie-core, libvirt-daemon-driver-
     uml, systemd, libvirt-client, qemu-system-mips-core, libvirt-daemon-
     driver-network, qemu-img, libzstd, adwaita-gtk2-theme, perl-Sys-Virt,
     qemu-system-ppc-core, vim-enhanced, libvirt-daemon-driver-storage-
     gluster, elfutils-libs, ocaml-pcre, libvirt-libs, libuuid, ocaml,
     libgomp, libmount, libvirt-daemon-driver-secret, perl-Unicode-UTF8,
     python2-rpm, qemu-system-aarch64-core, glib2, mariadb-libs, binutils,
     ocaml-camlp4-devel, perl-Digest-MD5, libcrypt, perl-IPC-SysV, ocaml-
     runtime, lvm2, qemu-block-iscsi, qemu-system-x86-core, perl-XML-
     Parser, ocaml-zip, tcp_wrappers, perl-Devel-Peek, libstdc++, deltarpm,
     gnupg2-smime, grub2-tools, perl-Locale-gettext, systemd-pam, rpm,
     glibc, git, libgfortran, perl-Compress-Raw-Bzip2, texlive-luatex-bin,
     ima-evm-utils, tcp_wrappers-libs, gnupg2, perl-IO, gdb-headless,
     libvirt-daemon-driver-interface, systemd-container, zstd, net-snmp-
     agent-libs, glibc-common, git-core, libvirt-daemon-driver-libxl, perl-
     Storable, libobjc, python3-PyYAML, evince-libs, ocaml-extlib, ncurses,
     ocaml-cppo, libdnf, quagga, libiscsi, qemu-system-m68k-core, ocaml-
     lablgl, perl-version, drpm, abrt-addon-kerneloops, ocaml-calendar,
     createrepo_c-libs, perl-PathTools, perl-HTML-Parser, abrt-addon-ccpp,
     bubblewrap, PackageKit, perl-Compress-Raw-Zlib, libvirt-daemon-driver-
     storage-zfs, glib2-devel, device-mapper-event-libs, libvirt-daemon-
     driver-storage-rbd, perl-Devel-Size, gcc-objc++, libvirt-daemon-
     driver-nodedev, perl-libintl-perl, ocaml-camomile, qemu-system-cris-
     core, virt-dib, rpm-plugin-selinux, perl-Variable-Magic, qemu-system-
     sh4-core, tar, abrt-plugin-bodhi, systemd-udev, ocaml-ocamlbuild,
     libvirt-daemon-driver-storage-core, libguestfs, ocaml-gettext-devel,
     qemu-block-dmg, perl-interpreter, socat, libvirt-daemon-driver-lxc,
     qemu-system-nios2-core, texlive-pdftex-bin, python2-deltarpm, mariadb-
     common, gcc, ocaml-gettext, net-snmp, perl-Package-Stash-XS, dwz,
     libvirt-daemon, createrepo_c, ocaml-fileutils, ocaml-lablgtk,
     elfutils-libelf, ocaml-ocamlgraph, abrt-libs, hivex, perl-Unicode-
     Collate, perl-Time-Piece, libvirt-daemon-driver-storage-scsi, nbdkit,
     device-mapper-libs, ncurses-libs, libquadmath, perl-Net-SSLeay,
     lm_sensors-libs, python2-hivex, ocaml-ocamlgraph-tools, perl-Filter,
     abrt-tui, jbuilder, rpm-libs, qemu-system-tricore-core,
     python2-hawkey, qemu-system-xtensa-core, qemu-system-or1k-core, ocaml-
     hivex, gcc-objc, perl-IO-Tty, abrt-dbus, gnome-desktop3,
     python3-hivex, abrt-addon-xorg, gcc-gdb-plugin, qemu-system-lm32-core,
     python3-rpm, qemu-system-unicore32-core, cpp, qemu-common, xen-libs,
     poppler-glib, gsl), /usr/lib/.build-id/2b(evince, perl-Devel-PPPort,
     grub2-tools, PackageKit)

RWMJ: This is all fine, seems to be a problem with fedora-review.

[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.

RWMJ: There is an ExclusiveArch tag with a comment.  Please submit the
required bugs for excluded architectures.

[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
     license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
     license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Perl:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
[x]: CPAN urls should be non-versioned.

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).

RWMJ: Requires & provides seem fine to me.  However I did not
attempt to install and test the package.

[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in perl-
     LMDB_File-debuginfo , perl-LMDB_File-debugsource

RWMJ: This is fine, bug in fedora-review.

[-]: Package functions as described.

RWMJ: Did not test.

[x]: Latest version is packaged.

RWMJ: Yes, 0.12 is the latest version on CPAN.

[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: perl-LMDB_File-0.12-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          perl-LMDB_File-debuginfo-0.12-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          perl-LMDB_File-debugsource-0.12-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          perl-LMDB_File-0.12-1.fc28.src.rpm
perl-LMDB_File.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
perl-LMDB_File.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
perl-LMDB_File-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources
perl-LMDB_File-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation
perl-LMDB_File-debugsource.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/src/debug/perl-LMDB_File-0.12-1.fc28.x86_64/LMDB.c
perl-LMDB_File-debugsource.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/src/debug/perl-LMDB_File-0.12-1.fc28.x86_64/ppport.h
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.


RWMJ: I believe all of these can be ignored.



Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: perl-LMDB_File-debuginfo-0.12-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
perl-LMDB_File-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.


RWMJ: Also can be ignored.


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
perl-LMDB_File-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.


RWMJ: Also can be ignored.


Requires
--------
perl-LMDB_File (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    liblmdb.so.0.0.0
    liblmdb.so.0.0.0()(64bit)
    libperl.so.5.26()(64bit)
    perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.26.1)
    perl(:VERSION)
    perl(AutoLoader)
    perl(Carp)
    perl(Exporter)
    perl(Fcntl)
    perl(Scalar::Util)
    perl(XSLoader)
    perl(strict)
    perl(warnings)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

perl-LMDB_File-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

perl-LMDB_File-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
perl-LMDB_File:
    perl(LMDB::Cursor)
    perl(LMDB::Env)
    perl(LMDB::Txn)
    perl(LMDB_File)
    perl-LMDB_File
    perl-LMDB_File(x86-64)

perl-LMDB_File-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    perl-LMDB_File-debuginfo
    perl-LMDB_File-debuginfo(x86-64)

perl-LMDB_File-debugsource:
    perl-LMDB_File-debugsource
    perl-LMDB_File-debugsource(x86-64)



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
perl-LMDB_File: /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/LMDB_File/LMDB_File.so

RWMJ: Can be ignored, see above.


Source checksums
----------------
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/S/SO/SORTIZ/LMDB_File-0.12.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 12bebaa48d22c1d825d8808fbf9923b518bcc9aa3dfb3f045f8fa9e7f2c08642
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 12bebaa48d22c1d825d8808fbf9923b518bcc9aa3dfb3f045f8fa9e7f2c08642


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1510877
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++, Perl
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

(In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #15)
> [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
> 
> RWMJ: There is an ExclusiveArch tag with a comment.  Please submit the
> required bugs for excluded architectures.

I replaced ExlusiveArch with ExcludeArch where I will add BZ numbers. But package should be approved before creating these BZ.

Please comment on the License field.  Everything else looks fine.

(In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #15)
> [?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>      Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
>      found: "Artistic (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 18 files have
>      unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
>      /var/tmp/rev/1510877-perl-LMDB_File/licensecheck.txt
> 
> RWMJ: The LICENSE file is Artistic.  The source files in the package
> don't seem to contain any license text.  The License tag in the spec
> file is "GPL+ or Artistic".  Is that correct?  There is no problem
> with the license itself, it's all open source.
> 
> [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> [?]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
>      must be documented in the spec.
> 
> RWMJ: See above.

According to http://search.cpan.org/~sortiz/LMDB_File-0.12/ it is only Artistic 2, I didnt find any other licenses. Changed.

I looked at the sources. The situation is this:

LICENSE:           Artistic 2.0 text
lib/LMDB_File.pm:  Artistic 2.0
ppport.h:          GPL+ or Artistic
README:            GPL+ or Artistic
LMDB.xs:           GPL+ or Artistic
Makefile.PL:       Artistic 2.0

Therefore the tag should be:

License: (GPL+ or Artistic) and Artistic 2.0

What license coveres other files like tests under ./t is unclear because README and LICENSE do not agree. I recommend to ask upstream for clarification.

But that does not prevent you from packaging this software. The license as expressed in my example is acceptable.

I'll accept either of those answers :-)

-----------------------------------------------
In any case, this package is APPROVED by rjones
-----------------------------------------------

There is still not component in Bugzilla to fill ExcludeArch bugs.

Adding koji build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23263944

(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-LMDB_File

This message is a reminder that Fedora 26 is nearing its end of life.
Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining
and issuing updates for Fedora 26. It is Fedora's policy to close all
bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time
this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora  'version'
of '26'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version'
to a later Fedora version.

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not
able to fix it before Fedora 26 is end of life. If you would still like
to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version
of Fedora, you are encouraged  change the 'version' to a later Fedora
version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes
bugs or makes them obsolete.