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: ucblogo - An interpreter for the Logo programming language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192043 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-06-02 12:32 EST ------- The SRPM link seems wrong; I found http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/5/i386/SRPMS.gemi/ucblogo-5.5-2.src.rpm which I hope is correct. The build fails due tue to lack of /usr/bin/tex; I think this is part of the texinfo-tex thing. I changed to BR: texinfo-tex and things seem to build fine. I'll proceed with the review assuming that change is made. I wonder if it's a good idea to just drop a file into /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/site-start.d/ without owning that directory. I checked what other packages do and the examples I found seem to own it. Most also seem to drop the .el files into /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp instead of keeping them with the package as ucblogo does, but I don't think this is a problem. It looks like the documentation is about 25% of the installed size of the package. The whole package is only 4MB total so I don't think it warrants a separate documentation subpackage. Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * source files match upstream: caf68577630645718492fd7d10fd4927 ucblogo-5.5.tar.gz caf68577630645718492fd7d10fd4927 ucblogo-5.5.tar.gz-srpm * latest version is being packaged. O BuildRequires are proper (after changing to texinfo-tex) O package builds in mock (development, x86_64). (after fixing BR:s) * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: ucblogo = 5.5-2.fc6 - /bin/sh /sbin/install-info libtermcap.so.2()(64bit) * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. ? owns the directories it creates (/usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/site-start.d?) * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * scriptlets present are sane. * code, not content. * documentation is not so small, but not so large that it needs to be in a separate package. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * info files are installed * not a GUI app. -- 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