Spec Name or Url: http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/jamatos/R-mAr.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/jamatos/R-mAr-1.1-1.src.rpm Description: R package: An R add-on package for estimation of multivariate AR models through a computationally-efficient stepwise least-squares algorithm (Neumaier and Schneider, 2001); the procedure is of particular interest for high-dimensional data without missing values such as geophysical fields.
Same version, new location: http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/jamatos/fedora-extras/R-mAr.spec http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/jamatos/fedora-extras/R-mAr-1.1-1.src.rpm As soon as I get a review of this package I will submit more R packages that are in the queue since its packaging it is mostly similar.
Agreed. This looks exactly like the template I was using for the CRAN packages I had in the queue. The only difference is that I also have: %check %{_bindir}/R CMD check %{packname} I also have tetex-latex as a BuildRequires, since it seems to need it for many packages to generate the docs.
Minor changes: %doc DESCRIPTION COPYING doesn't seem to be needed as these files end up in %{_libdir}/R/library/%{packname} as part of the install process. %check should be: cd ..;%{_bindir}/R CMD check %{packname}
With the changes I describe above applied... Good: - rpmlint checks return: W: R-mAr invalid-license GPL version 2 or newer (rpmlint making noise) E: R-mAr no-binary E: R-mAr only-non-binary-in-usr-lib (safe to ignore for R packages) W: R-mAr no-documentation W: R-mAr dangerous-command-in-%post perl W: R-mAr dangerous-command-in-%postun perl (safe to ignore) - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (GPL) OK, text included, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc - no need for .desktop file APPROVED, assuming my changes are applied (BR: tetex-latex, no duplication of docs, use of %check). With this sort of a template, these packages should be quick to review. :)
I have applied all your suggestions and I have imported the package. Thank you.
Build on target development succeeded.