[Bug 475035] Review Request: metapost-metauml - UML in LaTeX/MetaPost
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Dec 10 20:56:25 UTC 2008
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475035
Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tibbs at math.uh.edu
Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> 2008-12-10 15:56:24 EDT ---
Yep, builds clean and rpmlint is silent.
Why do you have the odd "?modtime=*" bits at the end of the URLs? They don't
seem to be needed, and if I use:
Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/metauml/metauml_lib_0.2.5.tgz
Source1: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/metauml/metauml_manual_0.2.5.pdf
then everything downloads and compares properly.
I note that the URL: tag leads to an error page. Is there any other web page
which could be referenced? We don't really want to direct interested people to
a page which doesn't exist.
We have no specific naming guidelines for metapost packages, but prefixing with
"metapost-" seems reasonable to me.
So my only concerns relate to the URLs. I guess if there's no live upstream
then it would be better not to include a URL: tag at all; you can always
include one later if upstream does come back up. And it would really be good
to use regular SourceN: URLs if at all possible. (If for no other reason than
to let the automated tests run over them checking for mismatches or download
problems.)
* source files match upstream. sha256sum:
ae43c06977dbd9ae579bdc04cdc809af4cd81a733f3f7282145ca34a4da04052
metauml_lib_0.2.5.tgz
6e3b197c229563ada8370063944f885def5beeea1600b8bf4891554f88343ca8
metauml_manual_0.2.5.pdf
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
metapost-metauml = 0.2.5-2.fc11
=
texlive
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
--
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.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list