[Bug 591415] Review Request: R-timeDate - Rmetrics - chronological and calendarical objects

[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=591415

Pierre-YvesChibon <pingou at pingoured.fr> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |pingou at pingoured.fr
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |pingou at pingoured.fr
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #1 from Pierre-YvesChibon <pingou at pingoured.fr> 2010-05-12 05:15:37 EDT ---
* source files match upstream:
   sha1sum timeDate_2110.88.tar.gz 
8b77f4e44cc0ebfe928974a3f59cf085f5c16431  timeDate_2110.88.tar.gz
   sha1sum rpmbuild/SOURCES/timeDate_2110.88.tar.gz 
8b77f4e44cc0ebfe928974a3f59cf085f5c16431 
rpmbuild/SOURCES/timeDate_2110.88.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.
  The license in the pdf DocCopying.pdf is a GPLv2 license while the rest of
the package is under GPLv2+

* license is open source-compatible.
* license text is included upstream.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
- Requires should be on R-core instead of R-devel

* %clean is present.
* package builds in koji (
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2182189 ).
* package installs properly
* rpmlint produces 4 warnings, safe to ignore (spelling).
  2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

* final provides and requires are sane
* %check is present and all tests pass.
* 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.
  I think unitTests should not be %doc

Would be nice if you could solve this license question and I will approve this
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.