[Bug 379751] Review Request: emacs-common-ess - Emacs Speaks Statistics add-on package for Emacs

[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: emacs-common-ess -  Emacs Speaks Statistics add-on package for Emacs


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=379751


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |tibbs at math.uh.edu




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2007-11-17 23:17 EST -------
The packages do end up with "a single word like emacs".  Specifically, "emacs".
 The data that's shared between the emacs and xemacs packages is called
emacs-common.  I don't see the naming of the source package to be a real issue
since users don't see it, but if the guidelines had be presented suggesting that
the SRPM be named emacs-foo regardless of which emacs variant the package
supports then I wouldn't have objected although I suppose that would look odd in
the case of an xemacs-only package.

Seems to build OK for me, although I saw complaints about not being to find any
version of R installed.  Will the built packages properly support R if it's not
in the buildroot?

Not that it matters, but why not use %{pkgname} in the Summary, too?

The install-info dependencies aren't quite right.  If you use something in
%post, you need Requires(post). 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets should have a template
for installing texinfo files.

rpmlint says:

  emacs-common-ess.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 
   /usr/share/doc/emacs-common-ess-5.3.6/ChangeLog.lisp
  emacs-common-ess.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 
   /usr/share/doc/emacs-common-ess-5.3.6/doc/TODO
  emacs-common-ess.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 
   /usr/share/doc/emacs-common-ess-5.3.6/ChangeLog
These should be passed through iconv.

  emacs-ess.noarch: W: no-documentation
  emacs-ess-el.noarch: W: no-documentation
  xemacs-ess.noarch: W: no-documentation
  xemacs-ess-el.noarch: W: no-documentation
I don't think these are problematic.

  emacs-ess.noarch: E: non-executable-script 
   /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/ess/etc/backbugs.sparc 0644
  emacs-ess.noarch: E: non-executable-script 
   /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/ess/etc/ess-sas-sh-command 0644
  emacs-ess.noarch: E: non-executable-script 
   /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/ess/etc/backbug5 0644
  emacs-ess.noarch: E: non-executable-script 
   /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/ess/etc/backbug5.sparc 0644
  emacs-ess.noarch: E: script-without-shebang 
   /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/ess/etc/BACKBUGS.BAT
I'm not really sure what the point of these files (and the rest of the ess/etc
directory) is.  Certainly the BAT files have no real place on Linux.  Are any of
them actually relevant?  What will call them?

-- 
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, or are watching someone who is.