Bug 737574

Hej Jussi,

almost nothing to complain about!
Here is the formal review:

$ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/lis-1.2.53-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm SPECS/lis.spec SRPMS/lis-1.2.53-1.fc15.src.rpm 
lis.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalable -> salable, callable, calculable
lis.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/liblis.so.0.0.0 exit.5
lis.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalable -> salable, callable, calculable
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

No blocker here, upstream could be asked if the shared-lib-calls-exit is intended

---------------------------------
key:

[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
---------------------------------

[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
    BSD according to source file headers and included COPYING file

[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
$ md5sum lis-1.2.53.tar.gz.*
275597239e7c47ab5aadeee7b7e2c6ce  lis-1.2.53.tar.gz.packaged
275597239e7c47ab5aadeee7b7e2c6ce  lis-1.2.53.tar.gz.upstream

[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[+] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. 
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[+] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
	Man, that is a documentation-wonderland! Kudos to upstream...
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[+] MUST: unversioned library file (*.so)  must go in the -devel package.
[+] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file
[.] MUST: .desktop files must be properly installed with
desktop-file-install/-validate in the %install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All file names in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file ...
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
[.] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) should be placed in a -devel pkg. 
[.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself.
[.] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. 

----------------

Comments: The -doc subpackage does not require the base package. This is of
  course not needed. However, since the pdf's packaged in the doc subpackage
  are from the source tarball, I would assume that they also fall under the
  same license.
  Then the doc subpackage should either require the base package or contain
  a copy of the license file:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing
  So please apply one of those options or prove me wrong. ;-) 

----------------
Package APPROVED
----------------

Thanks for the review! I've added COPYING to -doc.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: lis
Short Description: A library for solving linear equations and eigenvalue problems
Owners: jussilehtola
Branches: EL-5 EL-6 F-15 F-16
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

lis-1.2.53-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lis-1.2.53-3.fc16

lis-1.2.53-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lis-1.2.53-3.el6

lis-1.2.53-3.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lis-1.2.53-3.el5

lis-1.2.53-3.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lis-1.2.53-3.fc15

lis-1.2.53-3.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 testing repository.

lis-1.2.53-3.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.

lis-1.2.53-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.

lis-1.2.53-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.

lis-1.2.53-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.