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=515080 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-08-01 16:08:52 EDT --- R packaging is getting to be as automatic as Perl package, and about as boring to review. And, as with Perl, the biggest problem is licensing. Note several of the C files in src are GPLv2+, not LGPLv2+, unless that's a typo. This would seem to contradict the DESCRIPTION file. This should be clarified with the upstream developers. In addition to the usual one-line-command-in-* complaints, rpmlint says: R-preprocessCore-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib R-preprocessCore-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation which are both OK; R needs to find the headers in its namespace under _libdir. Your %descriptions (both of them) are missing periods. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 630b5fa4c98492eb4a189dfafb68213b51af88da928fa4fc90aae6e544811a31 preprocessCore_1.6.0.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 (could use periods). * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. X license field does not seem to match the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: R-preprocessCore-1.6.0-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm preprocessCore.so()(64bit) R-preprocessCore = 1.6.0-1.fc12 R-preprocessCore(x86-64) = 1.6.0-1.fc12 = /bin/sh R R-methods libR.so()(64bit) libRblas.so()(64bit) libRlapack.so()(64bit) libgfortran.so.3()(64bit) R-preprocessCore-devel-1.6.0-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm R-preprocessCore-devel = 1.6.0-1.fc12 R-preprocessCore-devel(x86-64) = 1.6.0-1.fc12 = R-preprocessCore = 1.6.0 * %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. * headers are in the -devel package. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. Unfortunately I cannot approve this due to the licensing issue. -- 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