[Bug 475035] Review Request: metapost-metauml - UML in LaTeX/MetaPost

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475035


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2008-12-10 15:56:24 EDT ---
Yep, builds clean and rpmlint is silent.

Why do you have the odd "?modtime=*" bits at the end of the URLs?  They don't
seem to be needed, and if I use:
  Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/metauml/metauml_lib_0.2.5.tgz
  Source1: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/metauml/metauml_manual_0.2.5.pdf
then everything downloads and compares properly.

I note that the URL: tag leads to an error page.  Is there any other web page
which could be referenced?  We don't really want to direct interested people to
a page which doesn't exist.

We have no specific naming guidelines for metapost packages, but prefixing with
"metapost-" seems reasonable to me.

So my only concerns relate to the URLs.  I guess if there's no live upstream
then it would be better not to include a URL: tag at all; you can always
include one later if upstream does come back up.  And it would really be good
to use regular SourceN: URLs if at all possible.  (If for no other reason than
to let the automated tests run over them checking for mismatches or download
problems.)

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:
  ae43c06977dbd9ae579bdc04cdc809af4cd81a733f3f7282145ca34a4da04052  
   metauml_lib_0.2.5.tgz
  6e3b197c229563ada8370063944f885def5beeea1600b8bf4891554f88343ca8  
   metauml_manual_0.2.5.pdf
* 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 included in package.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   metapost-metauml = 0.2.5-2.fc11
  =
   texlive

* 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
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.