Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert(a)fysast.uu.se> changed:
What |Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert(a)fysast.uu.se> 2009-05-11
07:42:53 EDT ---
Fedora review R-BSgenome-1.10.5-1.fc10.src.rpm (2009-05-11)
! Needs attention
* rpmlint output
R-BSgenome.noarch: W: one-line-command-in-%post
R-BSgenome.noarch: W: one-line-command-in-%postun
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
The one-line-command warnings are standard for R packages
* Package is named according to R packaging guidelines
* Package follows R packaging guidelines
* The package is licensed under a Fedora approved license (Artistic 2.0)
* The license matches what is written in the DESCRIPTION file
No license/copyright statements that contradict this was found
* License text not included in the package (OK since the stated
licence does not require it).
* Specfile is written in legible English and uses macros consitently
* Source matches upstream
! However it is not the latest version (1.12.0 is available for BioC 2.4)
* Package compiles in mock (Fedora 10)
! BuildRequires and Requires look sane, but
Is the "Requires: R-biobase" appropriate? It is not listed as a
Depends or Imports on the package web site. (It will be dragged in
as a dependency of the R-Biostrings package which is a direct
* %check is present, but disabled with the comment - which makes sense.
* The package owns the directories it creates
* No duplicate files
* %files has %defattrs, and permissions are sane.
* %clean clears %buildroot
* Package contains permissable content
* Package doesn't own other's directories
* %install clears %buildroot
* Installed filenames are valid UTF8 (even valid ASCII)
* Scriptlets are sane
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.