[Bug 435983] Review Request: ocaml-gsl - Interface to GSL (GNU scientific library) for OCaml

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Apr 25 13:06:37 UTC 2008


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: ocaml-gsl - Interface to GSL (GNU scientific library) for OCaml


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435983





------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz  2008-04-25 09:06 EST -------
OK	source files match upstream:
	    819d2f95f44cc4c331a4aa644f8d23704477de05  ocamlgsl-0.6.0.tar.gz
OK	package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
BAD	specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
OK	dist tag is present.
OK	build root is correct.
OK	license field matches the actual license.
OK	license is open source-compatible (GPLv2). License text included in package.
OK	latest version is being packaged.
BAD	BuildRequires are proper.
OK	compiler flags are appropriate.
OK	%clean is present.
OK	package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64).
N/A	debuginfo package looks complete.
OK	rpmlint is silent.
OK	final provides and requires look sane.
N/A	%check is present and all tests pass.
OK	no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
OK	owns the directories it creates.
OK	doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
OK	no duplicates in %files.
OK	file permissions are appropriate.
OK	scriptlets are present.
OK	code, not content.
OK	documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
OK	%docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
OK	no headers.
OK	no pkgconfig files.
OK	no libtool .la droppings.
OK	not a GUI app.

notes
- typo on %description - langage => language
- mixed usage of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot} in %install (info files)
- BR: gsl >= 1.9 should be removed as it will brought by gsl-devel

-- 
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.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list