https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1335988 --- Comment #19 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Jerry James from comment #17) > My latest attempt at building did NOT trigger the pari problem, so hopefully > that means that whatever caused it has gone away. > > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > > Issues: > ======= > - The configure script looks for Xinerama, but doesn't find it. Perhaps add > BuildRequires: libXinerama-devel or BuildRequires: pkgconfig(xinerama). > > - The tutorial in doc/*/casinter* is released under the GNU Free > Documentation > License, and is also not produced from source with hevea and hacha. > At the very least, the -doc subpackage's license must have GFDL added to > it. > I think you should also BuildRequires: hevea and generate the HTML files. > > - The giac-doc package owns %{_docdir}/giac-doc, and installs README in that > directory, but also installs files into both %{_docdir}/giac and > %{_datadir}/giac/doc, neither of which it owns. Since it can be installed > separately from the other packages, it must own these two directories. > > - tinymt32 is bundled. It should either be split out as a separate package, > or the bundling should be noted in the spec file; e.g., with > Provides: bundled(tinymt32) Where is in Fedora ? > > - The documentation bundles some javascript code: > o doc/codemirror.{css,js} (MIT) > o doc/FileSaver.js (MIT) > o doc/matchbrackets.js (MIT) Should be packaged in %_jsdir ? > > - Also note that texinfo.tex is available in the texinfo-tex package; it > appears in doc/{de,en,es,local,pt,zh}/texinfo.tex. This is not critical. > > - Revision 45 is packaged, but revision 63 is the latest. Does that matter? > > - gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in both %post xcas and %posttrans xcas. > The invocation in %post xcas should be removed. > > - The spec file contains an ExclusiveArch tag with a note about PPC and > aarch64. What are the issues? Is somebody working to resolve them? This > information would be useful in a spec file comment. Also, is it only PPC > and aarch64 that are not ready? If so, ExcludeArch should be used instead > of ExclusiveArch. What about mips, for example? > > - Does perl need to be present in the build root for any reason? If so, > then BuildRequires: perl-generators must be added since perl is being > removed from the default build root. > > - Would it be possible/advisable to split out the noarch files under > %{_datadir} into a noarch subpackage that is required by the main package? > That would allow sharing across architectures. > > - I understand that the non-UTF-8 rpmlint warnings should be ignored for > *.xws > files, but there are warnings for other types of files, too. Please look > through the warnings below and see if any of the other files should be > converted. > > - Please also check the hidden-file-or-dir warnings. Are those files needed? > > - Rpmlint still generates an unused-direct-shlib-dependency warning for > libgslcblas.so.0, in spite of the sed command in %build intended to fix > this. > Do you have any idea why? > > - I would like to suggest some updates to xcas-appdata.xml, which I will > attach. With these changes, "appstream-util validate" *almost* works. It > doesn't like the lengths of parts of the description. Oh, well. The > relaxed > validation still works. :-) > -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx