[Bug 451012] Review Request: pspp - program for statistical analysis of sampled data

[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: pspp - program for statistical analysis of sampled data


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451012





------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2008-06-13 01:05 EST -------
It looks odd to have the name of the package in the summary, since we already
have the package name.  I'd suggest just "A program for statistical analysis of
sampled data".  I don't think it's a particularly big deal, though.

There's a complete test suite included; I can't see any reason not to run it as
it works fine with:
  %check
  make check
after the %install section.

I'm pretty sure a GUI is included; shouldn't this have a desktop file so that it
will show up in the menus?

A couple of .la files are installed; generally these aren't shipped.  Are they
needed for something?

Both versioned and unversioned .so files are included in the base package. 
Generally when both are present, the unversioned .so files are put in the -devel
package, but there's not really anything else that would be in a -devel package.
 Are the unversioned .so files used for something?  They seem to be plugins of
some sort.

This package should own /etc/pspp.

* source files match upstream:
   8c85ada08e2133846efc221d88b6b3abd9a525587b1630b246a1887120d0804e  
   pspp-0.6.0.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
? summary is odd.
* 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.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   config(pspp) = 0.6.0-3.fc10
   libpsppire.so.0()(64bit)
   libpsppwidgets.so.0()(64bit)
   pspp = 0.6.0-3.fc10
  =
   /bin/sh
   config(pspp) = 0.6.0-3.fc10
   info
   libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libcairo.so.2()(64bit)
   libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libglade-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libgsl.so.0()(64bit)
   libgslcblas.so.0()(64bit)
   libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libncurses.so.5()(64bit)
   libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libplot.so.2()(64bit)
   libpsppire.so.0()(64bit)
   libpsppwidgets.so.0()(64bit)
   libreadline.so.5()(64bit)
   libtinfo.so.5()(64bit)
   libxml2.so.2()(64bit)
   libz.so.1()(64bit)

X %check is not present, but a test suite seems to exist.
 no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
X owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
X scriptlets are OK (info installation)
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
X libtool .la files are installed.
X no desktop file, but one should be there.

-- 
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.