Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hevea - LaTeX to HTML translator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190144 mpeters@xxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |mpeters@xxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From mpeters@xxxxxxx 2006-04-30 09:41 EST ------- Blocker: [mpeters@atlantis SPECS]$ md5sum hevea-1.08.tar.gz 073c92c9408a9679a397ce65a076c796 hevea-1.08.tar.gz [mpeters@atlantis SPECS]$ md5sum ../SOURCES/hevea-1.08.tar.gz 1a93c1924b817e54531abf74f0b34d4b ../SOURCES/hevea-1.08.tar.gz It seems that the md5sum from the src.rpm does not match upstream md5sum. 073c92c9408a9679a397ce65a076c796 is the upstream. I unpackaged both and did a diff: -- diff -ur hevea-1.08-upstream/latexscan.mll hevea-1.08/latexscan.mll --- hevea-1.08-upstream/latexscan.mll 2005-11-22 04:27:56.000000000 -0800 +++ hevea-1.08/latexscan.mll 2005-03-08 07:15:03.000000000 -0800 @@ -3253,7 +3253,7 @@ -let just_put c lb = Dest.put_char c +let just_put c lb = Dest.put_char '-' ;; def_code "\\@hevea@amper" do_amper ; -- The current upstream should be used. Suggest: In %install - mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/hevea mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_bindir} are not needed. make install will create the necessary directories. Good: * rpmlint clean * proper naming * spec file name matches %{name} * package meets packaging guidelines * License is QPL, License matches packaged LICENSE file. * Spec file written in American English * Spec file is understandable * Package succesfully builds in mock on FC5 x86 * No locales/shared libraries to worry about * No static/libtool files * Package not relocatable * Package owns all directories it creates * No duplicate files * No duplicate files * Proper file permissions, proper %defattr(...) in spec file * Package contains code * No need for separate doc package * %doc files not needed for runtime * No header/other devel package files to worry about * No gui package needing a desktop file -=- Please redownload the upstream source, verify that the md5sum is 073c92c9408a9679a397ce65a076c796 and create a new src.rpm Other than that - unless Jason Tibbitts has objections, I would be willing to approve. The documentation licensing is an interesting point, but since it isn't packaged, it is not a blocker. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review