[Bug 470702] Review Request: L-function - L-function calculator
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Mar 9 22:42:08 UTC 2009
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:
What |Removed |Added
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tibbs at math.uh.edu
--- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> 2009-03-09 18:42:07 EDT ---
Indeed, this still builds fine on rawhide and rpmlint is silent.
The tarball name is simply "L", which would be a rather poor package name;
"L-function" seems a reasonable replacement.
Does the -devel package actually require the main package? There are no
headers or anything, and the main package doesn't seem to have anything that
would be necessary for development. Also, the description for the devel
package mentions header files, which don't seem to be there. I note that there
are headers in the source archive but I'm not sure if they're supposed to make
it into the final package.
Have you considered enabling the PARI support?
* source files match upstream. sha256sum:
* 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.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper (none).
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
? final provides and requires:
L-function = 1.2-1.fc11
L-function(x86-64) = 1.2-1.fc11
L-function-static = 1.2-1.fc11
L-function-devel = 1.2-1.fc11
L-function-devel(x86-64) = 1.2-1.fc11
? L-function = 1.2-1.fc11
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
I installed and ran the examples in the README file and it seems to work,
although I have no idea if the values are actually correct.
* 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.
* 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.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* static libraries present:
No shared libraries are generate, so static libs are in the -devel package.
-static is provided.
* 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.
More information about the package-review