Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463902 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review- --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-03 16:13:57 EDT --- This is a rather simple package. Unfortunately I'm not terribly well-versed in TeX so it's tough for me to test it, but I ran it over the sample documents and it produced output which makes sense to me. I think I see some UTF-8 issues in the output (it uses ASCII 180 directly in the output when it probably shouldn't) but I don't think that's really a blocker, especially given the age of the code. The only thing rpmlint has to say is: chktex.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/chktexrc Shouldn't this file be marked %config? There's actually a small test suite included; you should run it (via "make check" or, since you seem to prefer those long macros, "%{__make} check", in a %check section). It should pass without problems. * source files match upstream: 268b615ed45422adbf4b908898548fea8fa2a5be0a83c976e239b6779a51b691 chktex-1.6.4.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. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint has a valid complaint. * final provides and requires are sane: chktex = 1.6.4-1.fc10 chktex(x86-64) = 1.6.4-1.fc10 = /bin/sh /usr/bin/perl X %check is not present, but there's a test suite. * 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. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc 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. The package review process needs reviewers! If you haven't done any package reviews recently, please consider doing one. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review