Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/R-AnnotationDbi.spec SRPM URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/R-AnnotationDbi-1.6.0-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: Provides user interface and database connection code for annotation data packages using SQLite data storage.
I cannot fetch the upstream source; http://bioconductor.org/packages/2.4/bioc/src/contrib/AnnotationDbi_1.6.0.tar.gz returns the usual 404 error. I find "spectool -g *spec" handy for testing this kind of thing. I went to the upstream web site and found 1.6.1; perhaps they just don't host older versions.
oups sorry I forgot to check for a newer version There it is: Spec URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/R-AnnotationDbi.spec SRPM URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/R-AnnotationDbi-1.6.1-1.fc11.src.rpm
That's better. Builds fine, rpmlint has only the usual two complaints. There's a stray space in your description. (Minor, I know.) I agree about the disabling of the check section; it would require build dependencies on a significant number of packages, most of which don't seem to be part of Fedora and almost all of which look to be large. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 80939b4fee2e5cc91186f67e878160be7dee199ab9e6a3fed5fb275d5acb0991 AnnotationDbi_1.6.1.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. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: R-AnnotationDbi = 1.6.1-1.fc12 = /bin/sh R R >= 2.9.0 R-Biobase R-DBI R-RSQLite R-methods R-utils * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files * scriptlets are OK (R package registration) * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. APPROVED
Thanks a lot for the review :) New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: R-AnnotationDbi Short Description: Annotation Database Interface Owners: pingou Branches: F-10, F-11 InitialCC:
CVS done.
R-AnnotationDbi-1.6.1-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/R-AnnotationDbi-1.6.1-1.fc10
R-AnnotationDbi-1.6.1-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/R-AnnotationDbi-1.6.1-1.fc11
R-AnnotationDbi-1.6.1-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update R-AnnotationDbi'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-8252
R-AnnotationDbi-1.6.1-1.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update R-AnnotationDbi'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-8253
R-AnnotationDbi-1.6.1-1.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
R-AnnotationDbi-1.6.1-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.