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: R-maanova - Analysis of N-dye Micro Array using mixed model effect https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=244234 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-09-30 15:56 EST ------- rpmlint complains of the license. The DESCRIPTION files says "GPLv2+" but the code itself says: # Licensed under the GNU General Public License version 2 (June, 1991) which I would interpret as overriding whatever DESCRIPTION says. Thus the License: tag should contain "GPLv2", but it would be best if you could contact upstream to clarify. I would suggest that you use the actual upstream site as your URL: http://www.jax.org/staff/churchill/labsite/software/Rmaanova/ I also note that 1.4.1 is out; it seems that it was available a couple of months before you submitted your package but it's only listed at the real upstream site, not the one you have in the URL tag. I don't see any significant changes which would invalidate this review, though, so I'll just work with the current package and you can update it later. You should probably terminate your %description entries with periods. Frankly I can't understand much from the description; maybe I'm just not enough of a statistician. However, what's on the real upstream web site is much more understandable. Perhaps you could consider using it instead. Since this is an arch-specific package, you do not need an explicit dependency on R as rpm will find the libR.so dependency automatically. The test suite warns: * checking for unstated dependencies in R code ... WARNING 'library' or 'require' calls not declared from: snow See the information on DESCRIPTION files in the chapter 'Creating R packages' of the 'Writing R Extensions' manual. I'm not sure what this means or if it's a problem. * source files match upstream: b0f1c1ab439f32fd1d74ef9f359a57aa0c7fdf9d0d0ba5b14a067895d345b24b maanova_1.4.0.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. ? description is a but * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. X license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text not included upstream. X latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint has a valid complaint. X final provides and requires are sane: maanova.so()(64bit) R-maanova = 1.4.0-2.fc8 = /bin/sh X R (unneeded manual dependency) libR.so()(64bit) ? %check is present; one test warns. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets OK (R module registration) * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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