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: tetex-elsevier https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201941 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-08-10 22:15 EST ------- There's not much to this package; upstream doesn't distribute this as anything other than a bunch of separate files. However, one things that concerns me is the files are essentially unversioned upstream. One thing you might consider doing is preserving the original file dates, but that might be difficult when fixing up the line endings. Also, why do you have BuildRequires: tetex-latex? It doesn't seem to be required for anything since you're just copying files around. Otherwise rpmlint is quiet and everything looks good. * source files match upstream: bb7c3602a593e7801068a0f4e3ac794e elsart1p.cls 2708bc993954490cb837de6a50548adc elsart3p.cls 06e26323c76bcfac2186918a050e84a2 elsart5p.cls 42609cbfaf1af3a660af564dbab9d42c elsart.cls 9205bf5292356dd1f0c924de61bc8dda elsart-harv.bst d94d325492f5efdb522bc1b966338ffd elsart-num.bst 0c563cda4d6a90aed64b1842cd1a3cc1 instructions-harv.pdf d705c36eed9d254a25749bbf76e32a8f instructions-num.pdf cc0c1c70f26472955aeb9e278e230858 template-harv.tex aa0283ae870ebb69c2dee52eb3881b58 template-num.tex * 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 not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. ? BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: tetex-elsevier = 0.1.20060416-3.fc6 = /usr/bin/texhash tetex-latex * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets look OK. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. (Actually the documentation is several times larger than the rest of the package, but the whole thing is only 500K.) * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. -- 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