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=498846 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-05 23:16:37 EDT --- Indeed, this builds fine now and rpmlint has only the usual two complaints. Please don't define a macro (%packrel) for your release; this makes it difficult for others (or the mass rebuild scripts) who may do maintenance on the package. Just use Release: 2%{?dist} The license for this package seems to be GPLv3+, not GPLv3. Or did I miss somewhere where later versions of the GPL or not permitted? * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 21c528b1431d0ef1ea9ab9486a61e58de184172e9a4451b532658b719beb218b RM2_0.0.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. X license field does not match 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 (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: R-RM2 = 0.0-2.fc12 = /bin/sh R R-msm R-mvtnorm * %check is present and all tests pass. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files. * scriptlets are OK (R package registration). * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. The package review process needs reviewers! If you haven't done any package reviews recently, please consider doing one. -- 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