Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490722 Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx | AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-05-11 07:42:53 EDT --- Fedora review R-BSgenome-1.10.5-1.fc10.src.rpm (2009-05-11) * OK ! Needs attention * rpmlint output R-BSgenome.noarch: W: one-line-command-in-%post /usr/lib/rpm/R-make-search-index.sh R-BSgenome.noarch: W: one-line-command-in-%postun /usr/lib/rpm/R-make-search-index.sh 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. The one-line-command warnings are standard for R packages * Package is named according to R packaging guidelines * Package follows R packaging guidelines * The package is licensed under a Fedora approved license (Artistic 2.0) * The license matches what is written in the DESCRIPTION file No license/copyright statements that contradict this was found * License text not included in the package (OK since the stated licence does not require it). * Specfile is written in legible English and uses macros consitently * Source matches upstream 9e9f8793065e5c49c07240c6cdcade9c BSgenome_1.10.5.tar.gz 9e9f8793065e5c49c07240c6cdcade9c SRPM/BSgenome_1.10.5.tar.gz ! However it is not the latest version (1.12.0 is available for BioC 2.4) * Package compiles in mock (Fedora 10) ! BuildRequires and Requires look sane, but Is the "Requires: R-biobase" appropriate? It is not listed as a Depends or Imports on the package web site. (It will be dragged in as a dependency of the R-Biostrings package which is a direct dependency) * %check is present, but disabled with the comment - which makes sense. * The package owns the directories it creates * No duplicate files * %files has %defattrs, and permissions are sane. * %clean clears %buildroot * Package contains permissable content * Package doesn't own other's directories * %install clears %buildroot * Installed filenames are valid UTF8 (even valid ASCII) * Scriptlets are sane -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review