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: grib_api - ECMWF encoding/decoding GRIB software https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427121 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus@xxxxxxx 2008-02-23 10:02 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > Builds OK; rpmlint has many complaints about the .sh files in the > documentation being executable, for example: > grib_api-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm > /usr/share/doc/grib_api-devel-1.3.0/examples/precision_fortran.sh > which, though I don't like executable documentation in general, I suppose are > OK as long as they don't generate additional dependencies. (They don't seem > to do so.) I agree, but in that case they are auto-documenting the arguments for the examples. And they are set up such that it should be easy to rerun them. > Also, > grib_api-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length > /usr/share/doc/grib_api-devel-1.3.0/data/missing_new.grib2 > which I guess is used by one of the examples and needs to be empty (although > you should verify this; we don't really want to be shipping empty files unless > there's some reason for it). This warning is not there anymore. > You should use a complete URL for Source0; this seems to work: > http://www.ecmwf.int/products/data/software/download/software_files/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz > > I note that 1.4.0 is out; did you want to update to it? A naive update fails > to build because __dist_doc seems to have been changed a bit. Yes, I updated to the latest version. > Without clarification from them I am > inclined to say that LGPLv3 is correct. It seems so to me too. I contacted them, but in the mean time I think that LGPLv3 is ok. > * description is OK (although some definition of "grib" might be considered to > be kind to the users. Done. > X license field matches the actual license. Done. > X latest version is being packaged. done. > * %check is present and all tests pass: > All 19 tests passed > All 14 tests passed Now one test doesn't pass, I have contacted upstream. I disabled them in the mean time. There are .mod files that are not rightly placed for now, still waiting on the fortran mod files guideline to be implemented. I don't think it should be a blocker I'll do things right as soon as it is implemented. I also contacted upstream for names that are too generic. http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/grib_api.spec http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/grib_api-1.4.0-1.fc9.src.rpm -- 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