Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> changed:
What |Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> 2009-08-28 00:44:01 EDT
OK, it indeed builds fine and rpmlint has only the expected two complaints.
You probably want "dependency" instead of "dependance" in
Note also that the templates in the R guidelines changed from using
"tetex-latex" to "tex(latex)" to use what modern tex packages use and
prepare for the next texlive upheaval. I'm sure the texlive packages will
provide the old symbols for compatibility so the existing packages won't break,
but at some point I guess they'll need to be fixed up.
* source files match upstream. sha256sum:
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary 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.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
R-affy = 1.22.1-2.fc12
R-affy(x86-64) = 1.22.1-2.fc12
R >= 2.8.0
* %check is necessarily disabled.
* 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.
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.