[Bug 515080] Review Request: R-preprocessCore - A collection of pre-processing functions

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515080


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2009-08-01 16:08:52 EDT ---
R packaging is getting to be as automatic as Perl package, and about as boring
to review.  And, as with Perl, the biggest problem is licensing.

Note several of the C files in src are GPLv2+, not LGPLv2+, unless that's a
typo.  This would seem to contradict the DESCRIPTION file.  This should be
clarified with the upstream developers.

In addition to the usual one-line-command-in-* complaints, rpmlint says:
  R-preprocessCore-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
  R-preprocessCore-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
which are both OK; R needs to find the headers in its namespace under _libdir.

Your %descriptions (both of them) are missing periods.

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:                     
   630b5fa4c98492eb4a189dfafb68213b51af88da928fa4fc90aae6e544811a31  
   preprocessCore_1.6.0.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 (could use periods).
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
X license field does not seem to match 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-preprocessCore-1.6.0-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm
   preprocessCore.so()(64bit)
   R-preprocessCore = 1.6.0-1.fc12
   R-preprocessCore(x86-64) = 1.6.0-1.fc12
  =
   /bin/sh
   R
   R-methods
   libR.so()(64bit)
   libRblas.so()(64bit)
   libRlapack.so()(64bit)
   libgfortran.so.3()(64bit)

  R-preprocessCore-devel-1.6.0-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm
   R-preprocessCore-devel = 1.6.0-1.fc12
   R-preprocessCore-devel(x86-64) = 1.6.0-1.fc12
  =
   R-preprocessCore = 1.6.0

* %check is present and all tests pass.
* 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.
* headers are in the -devel package.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

Unfortunately I cannot approve this due to the licensing issue.

-- 
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.