[Bug 470066] Review Request: R-qtl - Quantitative trait loci (qtl) functionality for R

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470066


Alec Leamas <leamas.alec at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |leamas.alec at gmail.com




--- Comment #4 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec at gmail.com>  2008-11-19 06:24:52 EDT ---
(Hej!)

I need a sponsor, so I need to make some informal reviews, see below, Please
feel free to do the same for me, by request is bug 471575 (if it looks strange
to you, it's nothing compared to what this stuff looks for me ;-)

Summary: OK besides the license, which should be GPLv2


MUST stuff:
rpmlint must be run on every package...
  - No errors or warnings on srpm or spec file.

The package must be named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines .
   - OK (see section on R-modules in the Naming Gauidelines).

The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, 
   - OK

The package must meet the  Packaging Guidelines .
   - OK besides licensing, see below. (follows closely the specific 
     R guidelines)

The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license...
   - NOK, see below

The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
   - The License tag is set to GPLv2+, but the actual source license
     is GPLv2. This is true both for the LICENSE file and at least 
     some copyright notices.

The text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc
   - OK

The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
   - OK

The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source
   - OK (b62289d268a09b72c5e804f35df53a67)

The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms.
   - OK (Mock test, Fedora-9/X86_64)

All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
   - OK (since mock is OK)

The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
   - NA

Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files 
   - NA

If the package is designed to be relocatable...
   - NA

A package must own all directories that it creates
   - OK

A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
   - OK

Permissions on files must be set properly
   - OK

Each package must have a %clean section, rm -rf %{buildroot} 
   - OK

Each package must consistently use macros...
   - OK

The package must contain code, or permissable content.
   - OK

Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage
   - OK (According to the specific R Guidelines, otherwise a separate
         -doc subpackage would definitely be on the agenda)

If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present
   - OK (Specific R Guidelines example).

Header files must be in a -devel package.
   - NA

Static libraries must be in a -static package.
   - NA

Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must...
   - NA

If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1
   - NA

If a package contains library files with a suffix
   - NA

devel packages must require the base package using...
   - NA

Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives
   - NA (no autoconf!)

Packages containing GUI applications...
   - NA

Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages
   - OK 

At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
   - OK

All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
   - OK

SHOULD 

   - The upstream license file (GPLv2) is present.
   - Localized descriptions are not applicable.
   - Build OK in mock, se above.
   - Built also on my "normal" Fedora 9 x86_64 box.
   - Scriptlets are "sane"
   - There are no subpackages, pkgconfig  .pc file or file deps.

-- 
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.