[Bug 195867] Review Request: tetex-IEEEtran Official LaTeX class for IEEE transactions
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Jun 19 05:02:57 UTC 2006
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: tetex-IEEEtran Official LaTeX class for IEEE transactions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195867
panemade at gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink at leemhuis.info |panemade at gmail.com
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2006-06-19 00:54 EST -------
Review for this package:-
Mock Build Results for i386
-Successfully built on i386
MUST Items:
- MUST: rpmlint shows error
W: tetex-IEEEtran invalid-license Perl Artistic License
- MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- MUST: The spec file name matching the base package IEEEtran.zip, is not
in the format IEEEtran.spec
You CAN change upstream package name to tetex-IEEEtran.spec
- MUST: This package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: The package is NOT licensed with any open-source compatible license.
- MUST: The License field in the package tetex-IEEEtran.spec file is NOT
included in upstream tarball.
- MUST: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. md5sum is correct.
- MUST: This package owns all directories that it creates.
- MUST: This package did not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
- MUST: This package have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
- MUST: This package used macros.
- MUST: Document files are included like README.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list