[Bug 463902] Review Request: chktex - LaTex semantic checker

[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=463902


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 #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2008-10-03 16:13:57 EDT ---
This is a rather simple package.  Unfortunately I'm not terribly well-versed in
TeX so it's tough for me to test it, but I ran it over the sample documents and
it produced output which makes sense to me.  I think I see some UTF-8 issues in
the output (it uses ASCII 180 directly in the output when it probably
shouldn't) but I don't think that's really a blocker, especially given the age
of the code.

The only thing rpmlint has to say is:
  chktex.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/chktexrc
Shouldn't this file be marked %config?

There's actually a small test suite included; you should run it (via "make
check" or, since you seem to prefer those long macros, "%{__make} check", in a
%check section).  It should pass without problems.

* source files match upstream:
   268b615ed45422adbf4b908898548fea8fa2a5be0a83c976e239b6779a51b691  
   chktex-1.6.4.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.
* license text included in package.
* 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.
X rpmlint has a valid complaint.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   chktex = 1.6.4-1.fc10
   chktex(x86-64) = 1.6.4-1.fc10
  =
   /bin/sh
   /usr/bin/perl

X %check is not present, but there's a test suite.
* 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.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc 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.

The package review process needs reviewers!  If you haven't done any package
reviews recently, please consider doing one.

-- 
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.