Spec URL: http://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/chktex.spec SRPM URL: http://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/chktex-1.6.4-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: This program has been written in frustration because some constructs in LaTeX are sometimes non-intuitive, and easy to forget. It is _not_ a replacement for the built-in checker in LaTeX; however it catches some typographic errors LaTeX oversees. In other words, it is Lint for LaTeX. Filters are also provided for checking the LaTeX parts of CWEB documents.
This is a rather simple package. Unfortunately I'm not terribly well-versed in TeX so it's tough for me to test it, but I ran it over the sample documents and it produced output which makes sense to me. I think I see some UTF-8 issues in the output (it uses ASCII 180 directly in the output when it probably shouldn't) but I don't think that's really a blocker, especially given the age of the code. The only thing rpmlint has to say is: chktex.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/chktexrc Shouldn't this file be marked %config? There's actually a small test suite included; you should run it (via "make check" or, since you seem to prefer those long macros, "%{__make} check", in a %check section). It should pass without problems. * source files match upstream: 268b615ed45422adbf4b908898548fea8fa2a5be0a83c976e239b6779a51b691 chktex-1.6.4.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. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text not included upstream. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint has a valid complaint. * final provides and requires are sane: chktex = 1.6.4-1.fc10 chktex(x86-64) = 1.6.4-1.fc10 = /bin/sh /usr/bin/perl X %check is not present, but there's a test suite. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. The package review process needs reviewers! If you haven't done any package reviews recently, please consider doing one.
I have added a %check rule in the specfile and made the file in etc a config file Spec URL: http://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/chktex.spec SRPM URL: http://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/chktex-1.6.4-2.fc9.src.rpm Yes, I should definitively make some reviews...
The second URL seems to be invalid. It doesn't seem as if the updated spec and package were uploaded.
Oh great! I forgot to upload them. Now it should work, sorry
Thanks. This looks good to me; rpmlint is silent and the small test suite passes. APPROVED
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: chktex Short Description:LaTex semantic checker Owners: sergiopr Branches: F-9 F-8 InitialCC:
cvs done