Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 585817
Review Request: R-caTools - Moving window statistics, GIF, Base64, ROC AUC, etc
Last modified: 2010-06-12 06:31:05 EDT
Spec URL: http://www.nosuchhost.net/~cheese/fedora/packages/devel/R-caTools.spec SRPM URL: http://www.nosuchhost.net/~cheese/fedora/packages/devel/R-caTools-1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: Contains several basic utility functions including: moving (rolling, running). window statistic functions, read/write for GIF and ENVI binary files, fast. calculation of AUC, LogitBoost classifier, base64 encoder/decoder, round-off. error free sum and cumsum, etc. ------------------ depends on yet to review R-bitops
fix buildrequires http://www.nosuchhost.net/~cheese/fedora/packages/devel/R-caTools-1.10-2.fc12.src.rpm
* source files match upstream: sha1sum caTools_1.10.tar.gz e9f393dbfe3928448ccdc40dd011987d73acce9b caTools_1.10.tar.gz sha1sum rpmbuild/SOURCES/caTools_1.10.tar.gz e9f393dbfe3928448ccdc40dd011987d73acce9b rpmbuild/SOURCES/caTools_1.10.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 koji ( http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2182053 ). - Although the build produces a lot of warnings, you might want to contact upstream to see if you can arrange some of these. * package installs properly * example from ?caTools runs properly * rpmlint produces 2 warnings, safe to ignore (spelling). 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. * final provides and requires are sane * %check is present and all tests pass. - It seems to produce a WARNING on the cross-reference test, not a blocker though * 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 -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. ** APPROVED **
btw as a side note, you could move: # remove exec-bits cd %{_builddir}/%{packname}/%{packname}/src chmod -x *.c *.h *.cpp to %prep and then something like chmod -x %{packname}/src/*
ping ?
I guess you will have to initiate non-responsive maintainer process for him and re-submit for review (guess second is not compulsory as per policy) but that seems to be better here.
Hi Pierre, I think you can open a new review request for this package, then mark this report as a duplicate. Since this package is already reviewed, I'm happy to approve this package for you. Chen Lei
I hereby close this bug as a duplicate of #603311 *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 603311 ***