[Bug 166438] Review Request: R-mAr

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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: R-mAr


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166438


tcallawa at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163779
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From tcallawa at redhat.com  2005-10-05 13:41 EST -------
With the changes I describe above applied...

Good:

- rpmlint checks return:
W: R-mAr invalid-license GPL version 2 or newer
(rpmlint making noise)
E: R-mAr no-binary
E: R-mAr only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
(safe to ignore for R packages)
W: R-mAr no-documentation
W: R-mAr dangerous-command-in-%post perl
W: R-mAr dangerous-command-in-%postun perl
(safe to ignore)

- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license (GPL) OK, text included, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream
- package compiles on devel (x86)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc
- no need for .desktop file

APPROVED, assuming my changes are applied (BR: tetex-latex, no duplication of
docs, use of %check).

With this sort of a template, these packages should be quick to review. :)

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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.