Spec URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/R-preprocessCore.spec SRPM URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/R-preprocessCore-1.6.0-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: A library of core preprocessing routines
R packaging is getting to be as automatic as Perl package, and about as boring to review. And, as with Perl, the biggest problem is licensing. Note several of the C files in src are GPLv2+, not LGPLv2+, unless that's a typo. This would seem to contradict the DESCRIPTION file. This should be clarified with the upstream developers. In addition to the usual one-line-command-in-* complaints, rpmlint says: R-preprocessCore-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib R-preprocessCore-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation which are both OK; R needs to find the headers in its namespace under _libdir. Your %descriptions (both of them) are missing periods. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 630b5fa4c98492eb4a189dfafb68213b51af88da928fa4fc90aae6e544811a31 preprocessCore_1.6.0.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 (could use periods). * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. X license field does not seem to match the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text not included upstream. * 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. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: R-preprocessCore-1.6.0-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm preprocessCore.so()(64bit) R-preprocessCore = 1.6.0-1.fc12 R-preprocessCore(x86-64) = 1.6.0-1.fc12 = /bin/sh R R-methods libR.so()(64bit) libRblas.so()(64bit) libRlapack.so()(64bit) libgfortran.so.3()(64bit) R-preprocessCore-devel-1.6.0-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm R-preprocessCore-devel = 1.6.0-1.fc12 R-preprocessCore-devel(x86-64) = 1.6.0-1.fc12 = R-preprocessCore = 1.6.0 * %check is present and all tests pass. * 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. * headers are in the -devel package. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. Unfortunately I cannot approve this due to the licensing issue.
(In reply to comment #1) > R packaging is getting to be as automatic as Perl package, and about as boring > to review. And, as with Perl, the biggest problem is licensing. I really sorry about that :-) > Note several of the C files in src are GPLv2+, not LGPLv2+, unless that's a > typo. This would seem to contradict the DESCRIPTION file. This should be > clarified with the upstream developers. I will contact upstream and let you know > Your %descriptions (both of them) are missing periods. I'll take care of that Thanks for the review
I sent an email to upstream there his is (complete !) answer "The licence in the DESCRIPTION is the intended licence"
In that case what I'd do is to include that email (including the headers and such) in a README.License file and also indicate in that file that the license statements in the various pieces of code do not apply. Honestly I'd make a note of the license blocks in each source file so that it's easy to see what is being overridden by that statement by upstream. It might also be a good idea to double check that there's no code there which is obviously taken from some other source, as it would not be possible for a simple statement like the above to override the license on such code.
I have ask upstream if he can do the change on the cvs
You can do that if you like, but for Fedora's purposes the email is sufficient. It just needs to be stuck in a file that's included in the package.
I added the mail in the file preprocessCore_license. Spec URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/R-preprocessCore.spec SRPM URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/R-preprocessCore-1.6.0-2.fc11.src.rpm
Looks good to me. APPROVED
Thanks for the review :) New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: R-preprocessCore Short Description: A collection of pre-processing functions Owners: pingou Branches: F-10, F-11 InitialCC:
CVS done.
R-preprocessCore-1.6.0-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/R-preprocessCore-1.6.0-2.fc11
R-preprocessCore-1.6.0-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/R-preprocessCore-1.6.0-2.fc10
R-preprocessCore-1.6.0-2.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-preprocessCore'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-8353
R-preprocessCore-1.6.0-2.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-preprocessCore'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-8356
R-preprocessCore-1.6.0-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
R-preprocessCore-1.6.0-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.