Request for review: latex-prosper

[Jose Pedro Oliveira]

> On Sun, 2005-05-29 at 22:45 -0700, Michael A. Peters wrote:
>> On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 05:29 +0100, Jose Pedro Oliveira wrote:
>> > Michael Peters,
>> >
>> > > http://mpeters.us/fc_extras/latex-prosper.spec
>> > > http://mpeters.us/fc_extras/latex-prosper-1.00.4-0.1.src.rpm
>> >
>> > The namespace for LaTeX packages in Fedora is tetex. Please
>> > rename the package to tetex-prosper.
>>
>> done
>>
>> http://mpeters.us/fc_extras/tetex-prosper.spec
>> http://mpeters.us/fc_extras/tetex-prosper-1.00.4-0.1.src.rpm
>>
>> fixed License tag as well
>
> Are there any outstanding issues?

Yes, there are.

1) The license is wrong (BSD?).  According to the file prosper.cls
it should be "LaTeX Project Public License".  This license is valid and
is recognized by the lastest rpmlint versions (/etc/rpmlint/config).

2) split the scriptlets requirements. Check
   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines

3) The package doesn't appears to be installing documentation
   that can be located by texdoc (at least the file prosper-doc.pdf).

I will try to review it better tomorrow.  Meanwhile see for example, the
specfile of tetex-bytefield available in the Extras repo.

> I'd like to get someone to sponsor this for inclusion in CVS.
> I believe I have CVS access (haven't tried to commit anything yet - only
> package that has had explicit approval stopped building on x86 on
> rawhide :-/ ) but I need the explicit approval.
>
> This is an extremely low maintenance noarch package.

Regards,
jpo
-- 
José Pedro Oliveira
* mailto: jpo at di.uminho.pt * http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/~jpo *
* gpg fingerprint = F9B6 8D87 859D 1C94 48F0 84C0 9749 9EB5 91BD 851B *