[Bug 498846] Review Request: R-RM2 - Revenue Management and Pricing for R

[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=498846


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 #8 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2009-07-05 23:16:37 EDT ---
Indeed, this builds fine now and rpmlint has only the usual two complaints.

Please don't define a macro (%packrel) for your release; this makes it
difficult for others (or the mass rebuild scripts) who may do maintenance on
the package.  Just use
  Release: 2%{?dist}

The license for this package seems to be GPLv3+, not GPLv3.  Or did I miss
somewhere where later versions of the GPL or not permitted?

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:       
   21c528b1431d0ef1ea9ab9486a61e58de184172e9a4451b532658b719beb218b  
   RM2_0.0.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.                                                          
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
X license field does not match the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text not included upstream.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   R-RM2 = 0.0-2.fc12
  =
   /bin/sh
   R
   R-msm
   R-mvtnorm

* %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.

The package review process needs reviewers!  If you haven't done any package
reviews recently, please consider doing one.

-- 
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.