Bug 225920

Summary: Merge Review: jadetex
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Daniel Novotny <dnovotny>
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: dnovotny, ovasik, twaugh
Target Milestone: ---Flags: dnovotny: fedora-review+
wtogami: fedora-cvs+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-01-14 15:57:03 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:

Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-31 19:08:07 UTC
Fedora Merge Review: jadetex

http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/jadetex/
Initial Owner: twaugh@redhat.com

Comment 1 Ondrej Vasik 2007-07-27 08:27:46 UTC
Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: jadetex
Updated Fedora Owners: ovasik@redhat.com

Comment 2 Daniel Novotny 2010-01-14 15:57:03 UTC
OK source files match upstream:
634dfc172fbf66a6976e2c2c60e2d198  jadetex-3.13.tar.gz
OK source contains full URL
- downloaded without problems, even from sourceforge :)
OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
OK dist tag is present.
OK build root is correct.
OK license field matches the actual license (freely redistributable).
OK license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
 - the text seems to be in the file jadetex.dtx, correct me if I'm wrong

OK latest version is being packaged.
OK BuildRequires are proper.
OK compiler flags are appropriate.
OK %clean is present.
OK package builds in mock.
N/A debuginfo package looks complete. - no debuginfo needed
OK* rpmlint is silent.
jadetex.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
jadetex.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
 - rpmlint seems to be confused by usage of shell variables,
   so this is not a problem
jadetex.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/jadetex etex
jadetex.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/pdfjadetex pdfetex
 - these are links to binaries which are in requires
jadetex.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm
 - we are rm-ing logs only, this should be ok

OK final provides and requires look sane.
N/A %check is present and all tests pass.
OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
OK owns the directories it creates.
OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
OK no duplicates in %files.
OK file permissions are appropriate.
OK* scriptlets:
there's a 
%triggerin -- texlive
/usr/bin/env - PATH=$PATH:%{_bindir} fmtutil-sys --cnffile %{_datadir}/texmf/tex
/jadetex/jadefmtutil.cnf --all > /dev/null 2>&1
exit 0
but that looks quite sane, fmtutil-sys is owned by texlive
OK code vs content:
collection of TeX macros can be viewed as content, but that's ok
OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
OK no headers.
OK no pkgconfig files.
OK no libtool .la droppings.
OK not a GUI app.

Those rpmlint warnings are not a big deal, I found an explanation to all of them, so the package overall looks good. Review +.