[Bug 427624] Review Request: R-qvalue - Q-value estimation for false discovery rate control

[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-qvalue - Q-value estimation for false discovery rate control


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427624





------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2008-01-07 23:42 EST -------
This does build but I get a huge number of errors building the documentation:

pdfTeX warning: pdflatex (file
/var/lib/texmf/fonts/map/pdftex/updmap/pdftex.map): ambiguous entry for
`ebbx10': font file present but not included, will be treated as font file not
present

and so on.   The resulting document is obviously not correct; compare
http://www.math.uh.edu/~tibbs/qvalue.pdf to 
http://bioconductor.org/packages/2.1/bioc/vignettes/qvalue/inst/doc/qvalue.pdf

I'm really not sure what the problem is, or what to do with this review.  Is
that problem significant enough to block this package?  This is really the only
thing I see that's problematic, but if it's a texlive problem and not a problem
with this package then I'm inclined to approve it, as texlive is breaking other
things in various ways.  What do you think?

I think we've established in the past that they mean LGPLv2+ for the license,
and that upstream is never going to pull their heads out and make even the
simplest of clarifications to the licensing information in their packages or on
their web pages.  So I'm not even going to complain about it.

* source files match upstream:
   90012885da8bc630e146a569da0d46549af6d230a9f852074b2e0f713b1e99e6  
   qvalue_1.12.0.tar.gz
* 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 not included upstream.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* rpmlint has only the two expected complaints for R packages.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   R-qvalue = 1.12.0-1.fc9
  =
   /bin/sh
   R
* %check is present and all tests pass.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* scriptlets are OK (R package registration)
* code, not content.
* %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, or are watching someone who is.