[Bug 195867] Review Request: tetex-IEEEtran Official LaTeX class for IEEE transactions

[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 report.

Summary: Review Request: tetex-IEEEtran Official LaTeX class for IEEE transactions


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195867





------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2006-06-19 17:58 EST -------
Builds fine in mock (x86_64, development). rpmlint errors as above; you just
need to change your license tag to "Artistic".

You should supply the full URL to the source if you can (so folks can just run
spectool -g to download the upstream sources for your package).  You have the
URL in there but commented out so perhaps there's something I'm not understanding.

Regarding lyx, what needs to be generated?  Does lyx generate what it needs when
it installs?  If so, then you can just do the necessary setup conditionally
based on whether you find lyx there or not.  Otherwise you need to use triggers
or get the lyx packagers to set something up for you.  It's probably best to
talk to them anyway.

Review:
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines (we have no specific guidelines
for tetex-subpackages)
X specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently
(see source URL issue above)
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
O license field matches the actual license (use "Artistic" to appease rpmlint)
* license is open source-compatible.  License text not included upstream.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (x86_64, development).
X rpmlint complains about license tag
* final provides and requires are sane:
   tetex-IEEEtran = 1.6c-1.fc6
  =
   /bin/sh
   /usr/bin/texhash
   tetex-latex
* no shared libraries are present.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* scriptlets present and OK (texhash calls)
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.