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: emacs-common-ess - Emacs Speaks Statistics add-on package for Emacs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=379751 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-11-18 15:07 EST ------- rpmlint is down to just the four no-documentation complaints, which are OK. Everything looks good to me. * source files match upstream: 9531c53e534550924680862e10c04eadd9c049c66a1fc0b9df940c1f966c7a12 ess-5.3.6.tgz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * Emacs packaging guidelines look to be followed properly. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * 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: emacs-common-ess-5.3.6-2.fc9.noarch.rpm emacs-common-ess = 5.3.6-2.fc9 = /bin/sh /sbin/install-info emacs-ess-5.3.6-2.fc9.noarch.rpm emacs-ess = 5.3.6-2.fc9 = /bin/sh emacs(bin) >= 22.1 emacs-common-ess = 5.3.6-2.fc9 emacs-ess-el-5.3.6-2.fc9.noarch.rpm emacs-ess-el = 5.3.6-2.fc9 = emacs-ess = 5.3.6-2.fc9 xemacs-ess-5.3.6-2.fc9.noarch.rpm xemacs-ess = 5.3.6-2.fc9 = /bin/sh emacs-common-ess = 5.3.6-2.fc9 xemacs(bin) >= 21.5.28 xemacs-ess-el-5.3.6-2.fc9.noarch.rpm xemacs-ess-el = 5.3.6-2.fc9 = xemacs-ess = 5.3.6-2.fc9 * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. Frankly I've no idea how to test this so I'll trust the maintainer. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets are OK (texinfo index generation) * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. APPROVED -- 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, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review