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-Biobase 1.14.0 - Functions that are needed by many other packages https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=240500 alexl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |alexl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From alexl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-11-11 20:13 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > Based on the R packaging guidelines, there are the new files > > SPEC: > http://pingoured.dyndns.org/public/RPM/R-Biobase-1.14/R-Biobase.spec > SRPM: > http://pingoured.dyndns.org/public/RPM/R-Biobase-1.14/R-Biobase-1.14.0-3.fc6.src.rpm The License: tag is wrong, according to http://www.bioconductor.org/packages/2.0/bioc/html/Biobase.html it is licensed under "Artistic 2.0" which is acceptable for Fedora but needs to made explicit:, see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing Tom, I'd like to get bioconductor into Fedora, if you don't want to review this, I can pick it up. Pierre-Yves: are you planning on packaging all of Bioconductor, or only parts of it? Is there some kind of tracker bug that would block all the relevant packages? Which package should I review (and build) first? -- 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