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: q - Equational programming language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194519 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-06-12 23:18 EST ------- The only thing I see now is: W: mod_q doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/mod_q-7.1/myreq.q /usr/bin/q myreq.q shouldn't be executable. I'll just assume you'll fix this. Some of the provides of the main q package are a bit scary because they are named similarly to other libraries. I checked them all and they don't cause any conflicts but it's best to be careful. I've marked them with a question mark in the dependency list below. I'm going to go ahead and approve this because the only blocker is the myreq.q thing. But let's think about how to deal with those odd library provides. Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * source files match upstream: 5fe46c40dc8530d4bf1ce23acc42d57a q-7.1.tar.gz * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (i386, development). X rpmlint complains about myreq.q and has another ignorable warning. ? final provides and requires are sane: mod_q-7.1-1.fc6.i386.rpm mod_q.so mod_q = 7.1-1.fc6 = X /usr/bin/q (this is the doc file dependency I'm assuming you'll fix) httpd >= 2.0.40 libqint.so.2 q-7.1-1.fc6.i386.rpm ? clib.so ? curl.so ? gdbm.so libq.so.8 libqint.so.2 ? magick.so ? octave.so ? odbc.so ? swig.so ? tk.so ? xml.so q = 7.1-1.fc6 = /bin/sh /sbin/install-info /sbin/ldconfig libMagick.so.10 libX11.so.6 libcurl.so.3 libgdbm.so.2 libgmp.so.3 libncurses.so.5 libodbc.so.1 libq.so.8 libqint.so.2 libreadline.so.5 libtcl8.4.so libtermcap.so.2 libtk8.4.so libxml2.so.2 libxslt.so.1 libz.so.1 q-devel-7.1-1.fc6.i386.rpm q-devel = 7.1-1.fc6 = /bin/sh libgmp.so.3 libncurses.so.5 libq.so.8 libqint.so.2 libreadline.so.5 libtermcap.so.2 libtool libutil.so.1 q = 7.1-1.fc6 * shared libraries are present; ldconfig is called and where necessary, unversioned libraries are in the devel package. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. X file permissions are appropriate (myreq.q in mod_q as above) * %clean is present. * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * scriptlets present and sane. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers present and in -devel package. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. APPROVED -- 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