[Bug 244234] Review Request: R-maanova - Analysis of N-dye Micro Array using mixed model effect

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: R-maanova - Analysis of N-dye Micro Array using mixed model effect


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=244234





------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2007-09-30 15:56 EST -------
rpmlint complains of the license.  The DESCRIPTION files says "GPLv2+" but the
code itself says:

# Licensed under the GNU General Public License version 2 (June, 1991)

which I would interpret as overriding whatever DESCRIPTION says.  Thus the
License: tag should contain "GPLv2", but it would be best if you could contact
upstream to clarify.

I would suggest that you use the actual upstream site as your URL: 
http://www.jax.org/staff/churchill/labsite/software/Rmaanova/

I also note that 1.4.1 is out; it seems that it was available a couple of months
before you submitted your package but it's only listed at the real upstream
site, not the one you have in the URL tag.  I don't see any significant changes
which would invalidate this review, though, so I'll just work with the current
package and you can update it later.

You should probably terminate your %description entries with periods.  Frankly I
can't understand much from the description; maybe I'm just not enough of a
statistician.  However, what's on the real upstream web site is much more
understandable.  Perhaps you could consider using it instead.

Since this is an arch-specific package, you do not need an explicit dependency
on R as rpm will find the libR.so dependency automatically.

The test suite warns:
* checking for unstated dependencies in R code ... WARNING
'library' or 'require' calls not declared from:
  snow
See the information on DESCRIPTION files in the chapter 'Creating R
packages' of the 'Writing R Extensions' manual.

I'm not sure what this means or if it's a problem.


* source files match upstream:
   b0f1c1ab439f32fd1d74ef9f359a57aa0c7fdf9d0d0ba5b14a067895d345b24b  
   maanova_1.4.0.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
? description is a but 
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
X license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text not included upstream.
X latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
X rpmlint has a valid complaint.
X final provides and requires are sane:
   maanova.so()(64bit)
   R-maanova = 1.4.0-2.fc8
  =
   /bin/sh
X   R (unneeded manual dependency)
   libR.so()(64bit)
? %check is present; one test warns.
* 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.
* scriptlets OK (R module registration)
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs 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.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.