Bug 490724
| Summary: | Review Request: R-RUnit - R Unit test framework | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Pierre-YvesChibon <pingou> | ||||
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Conrad Meyer <cse.cem+redhatbugz> | ||||
| Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> | ||||
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||
| Priority: | medium | ||||||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | cse.cem+redhatbugz, fedora-package-review, mattias.ellert, notting | ||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | cse.cem+redhatbugz:
fedora-review+
dennis: fedora-cvs+ |
||||
| Target Release: | --- | ||||||
| Hardware: | All | ||||||
| OS: | Linux | ||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||
| Fixed In Version: | 0.4.21-3.fc9 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | ||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
| Last Closed: | 2009-04-06 11:03:44 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||
| Embargoed: | |||||||
| Bug Depends On: | |||||||
| Bug Blocks: | 490723 | ||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
Pierre-YvesChibon
2009-03-17 18:18:14 UTC
Created attachment 336118 [details]
[Review]
Attached is my initial review.
In summary:
- Fix the UTF-8 and one-line-command-in-%post(un) rpmlint warnings.
- Fix the License (GPLv2+)
- Fix the duplicate files
- Why is %{_bindir}/R used in %check? Also, you may want to use %{version} in your Source0. But that's discretionary.
Everything else looks good.
(In reply to comment #1) > Created an attachment (id=336118) [details] > [Review] > > Attached is my initial review. > > In summary: > - Fix the UTF-8 and one-line-command-in-%post(un) rpmlint warnings. I would rather not because if I do so the pdf generated is corrupted. In addition please see : https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-January/msg00741.html Regarding the one-line-command-in-%post(un) see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/R > - Fix the License (GPLv2+) This actually needs information from upstream since the license version are different in the DESCRIPTION file, the website and the sources. > - Fix the duplicate files Fixed > - Why is %{_bindir}/R used in %check? Fixed (change R CMD INSTALL to %{_bindir}R CMD INSTALL) > Also, you may want to use %{version} in > your Source0. But that's discretionary. Fixed I will upload the new version as soon as I have news from upstream concerning the license used. Thanks for the review (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > - Fix the UTF-8 and one-line-command-in-%post(un) rpmlint warnings. > I would rather not because if I do so the pdf generated is corrupted. In > addition please see : > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-January/msg00741.html > > Regarding the one-line-command-in-%post(un) see: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/R Ok, I accept these warnings. > > - Fix the License (GPLv2+) > This actually needs information from upstream since the license version are > different in the DESCRIPTION file, the website and the sources. Either way it is an issue to resolve. > I will upload the new version as soon as I have news from upstream concerning > the license used. > > Thanks for the review Thank you for the quick responses. I will approve it when you figure out the license situation. R packaging guildlines say: "Note that other files, such as CONTENTS, INDEX, NAMESPACE, and help/ are not %doc, since proper R functionality depends on their presence." The spec file lists CONTENTS, INDEX and NAMESPACE as %doc. (In reply to comment #4) > R packaging guildlines say: "Note that other files, such as CONTENTS, INDEX, > NAMESPACE, and help/ are not %doc, since proper R functionality depends on > their presence." > > The spec file lists CONTENTS, INDEX and NAMESPACE as %doc. These should be fixed, then. Oups, thanks for pointing this out, I'll fix this. The mail to upstream has been sent yesterday, I'm waiting for an answer. Second mail sent to the R-devel mailing list Answer from the maintainer: > Hello Pierre, > > I must have missed your original email. > > GPL-2 is the intended license specification as given in the DESCRIPTION file. I'll check and update the code headers as soon as I have time for. > > Thanks for pointing this out. > > Best regards, Matthias Update: Spec URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/R-RUnit.spec SRPM URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/R-RUnit-0.4.21-2.fc10.src.rpm Thanks for getting that resolved. APPROVED. Thanks for the review :) New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: R-RUnit Short Description: R Unit test framework Owners: pingou Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: CVS Done R-RUnit-0.4.21-2.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/R-RUnit-0.4.21-2.fc9 R-RUnit-0.4.21-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/R-RUnit-0.4.21-2.fc10 R-RUnit-0.4.21-3.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/R-RUnit-0.4.21-3.fc9 R-RUnit-0.4.21-3.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/R-RUnit-0.4.21-3.fc10 R-RUnit-0.4.21-3.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. R-RUnit-0.4.21-3.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |