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: swarp - Tool that resamples and co-adds together FITS images https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452150 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-06-19 22:03 EST ------- Two observations: The pdf file is 1.5MB and three times the size of the rest of the package. Did you consider putting it in a separate package? I don't think it's a requirement but you know best how this package will be used. %{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/%{name} at the end of %install seems to be superfluous, as that directory is created (and swarp.xsl is installed there) by the install process. It seems to be harmless, though. I don't think either of these are blockers, though. * source files match upstream: 34e815d44f3b1c3c7bfdeb01bbdcf32d1eac239527a0937c3ed2b6f7be34bcee swarp-2.17.1.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * 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 not included upstream. license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (none). * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: swarp = 2.17.1-1.fc10 = (no non-glibc dependencies) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. There is a test directory containing one fits file, but it's not immediately clear what should be done with it. I ran the executable and gave it the test file and it did... something, without crashing, and didn't complain about it. * 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. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. ? documentation is 3x the rest of the package. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. 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