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=454441 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-11-07 13:25:23 EDT --- I'm a little surprised to see %{__rm} in one of your specs; I don't recall that you used those in the past. If you do intend them, you probably want %{__mkdir_p} and %{__cp} as well. Or is there some specific reason that %{__rm} is being used? * source files match upstream: c3ae302a5dc3806f49d59da0ef528e2ea9ead43367a02efd5f39de202709c262 bigmemory_2.3.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. X specfile does not use 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. * 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. * rpmlint has only the expected R complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: bigmemory.so()(64bit) R-bigmemory = 2.3-1.fc10 R-bigmemory(x86-64) = 2.3-1.fc10 = /bin/sh R libR.so()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9)(64bit) texlive-latex * %check is present and all tests pass. * 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 generically named files * scriptlets are OK (R package registration). * 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. -- 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