https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305335
--- Comment #4 from Mukundan Ragavan <nonamedotc(a)gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Mattias Ellert from comment #3)
(In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #2)
> Complete review below - not too many issues here.
>
> Package Review
> ==============
>
> - Package have the default element marked as %%doc :doc, DESCRIPTION,
> CITATION
>
> ---> This looks fine. Already discussed before (bz#1305333, bz#1305334
Both DESCRIPTION and CITATION are used at runtime - should not be %doc.
Right! That's exactly what I was pointing to! perfect.
> - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
> Note: R-Rcpp : /usr/lib64/R/library/Rcpp/skeleton/rcpp_hello_world.h
>
> ---> What about this file? Looking at the contents, this sounds like
> something that is appropriate in the main package. Please verify.
This file is read from inside the code, e.g. Rcpp/R/Rcpp.package.skeleton.R
line 156:
header <- readLines(file.path(skeleton, "rcpp_hello_world.h"))
Sounds good!
> ===== MUST items =====
>
> Generic:
> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
> found: "BSL", "BSL (v1.0)", "GPL (v2 or later)",
"Unknown or
> generated". 96 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
> licensecheck in
>
> /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1305335-R-Rcpp/licensecheck.txt
>
>
> ---> Multiple licenses must be mentioned in spec file.
>
> from licensecheck -
>
>
> BSL
> ---
> R-Rcpp-0.12.3/Rcpp/inst/include/Rcpp/utils/tinyformat.h
>
> BSL (v1.0)
> ----------
> R-Rcpp-0.12.3/Rcpp/inst/include/Rcpp/macros/cat.hpp
> R-Rcpp-0.12.3/Rcpp/inst/include/Rcpp/macros/config.hpp
>
> GPL (v2 or later)
> -----------------
> R-Rcpp-0.12.3/Rcpp/inst/examples/SugarPerformance/Timer.h
> R-Rcpp-0.12.3/Rcpp/inst/include/Rcpp.h
> R-Rcpp-0.12.3/Rcpp/inst/include/Rcpp/Benchmark/Timer.h
> R-Rcpp-0.12.3/Rcpp/inst/include/Rcpp/DataFrame.h
> R-Rcpp-0.12.3/Rcpp/inst/include/Rcpp/Date.h
> R-Rcpp-0.12.3/Rcpp/inst/include/Rcpp/DateVector.h
> [.....]
>
> Change spec file to
>
> License: GPLv2+ and BSL
Thank you for this one.
License tag changed to "GPLv2+ and Boost".
According to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses the
proper tag for the Boost Software License is "Boost", not "BSL".
Thanks for fixing this!
This is resolved.
> Rpmlint
> -------
> Checking: R-Rcpp-0.12.3-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
> R-Rcpp-devel-0.12.3-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
> R-Rcpp-examples-0.12.3-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
> R-Rcpp-debuginfo-0.12.3-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
> R-Rcpp-0.12.3-1.fc24.src.rpm
> R-Rcpp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
> /usr/lib64/R/library/Rcpp/skeleton/stdVector.cpp
> R-Rcpp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
> /usr/lib64/R/library/Rcpp/skeleton/rcpp_hello_world.h
> R-Rcpp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
> /usr/lib64/R/library/Rcpp/skeleton/rcpp_module.cpp
> R-Rcpp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
> /usr/lib64/R/library/Rcpp/skeleton/rcpp_hello_world.cpp
> R-Rcpp.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
> /usr/lib64/R/library/Rcpp/discovery/cxx0x.R 644 /bin/env
>
> ---> Please check/clarify these ...
>
> R-Rcpp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
> /usr/lib64/R/library/Rcpp/skeleton/Num.cpp
> R-Rcpp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
> /usr/lib64/R/library/Rcpp/skeleton/rcpp_hello_world_attributes.cpp
The R-Rcpp package is used to integrate C++ code with R. To simplify this
task the package provides a skeleton feature, which creates a template C++
code that you can use a the starting point for your C++ integration. The
source files in the skeleton directory are used by this feature. So they are
not part of the source code that is compiled to create the R-Rcpp package
itself, but datafiles needed by one of the features the package provides.
Thanks for the explanation. This sounds good.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component