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=514984
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |tibbs@math.uh.edu Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2009-08-01 14:31:05 EDT --- That's better. Builds fine, rpmlint has only the usual two complaints.
There's a stray space in your description. (Minor, I know.)
I agree about the disabling of the check section; it would require build dependencies on a significant number of packages, most of which don't seem to be part of Fedora and almost all of which look to be large.
* source files match upstream. sha256sum: 80939b4fee2e5cc91186f67e878160be7dee199ab9e6a3fed5fb275d5acb0991 AnnotationDbi_1.6.1.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 acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: R-AnnotationDbi = 1.6.1-1.fc12 = /bin/sh R R >= 2.9.0 R-Biobase R-DBI R-RSQLite R-methods R-utils
* 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 * scriptlets are OK (R package registration) * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
APPROVED