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: ucblogo - An interpreter for the Logo programming 


           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163778
              nThis|                            |

------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-06-02 12:32 EST -------
The SRPM link seems wrong; I found which I
hope is correct.

The build fails due tue to lack of /usr/bin/tex; I think this is part of the
texinfo-tex thing.  I changed to BR: texinfo-tex and things seem to build fine.
I'll proceed with the review assuming that change is made.

I wonder if it's a good idea to just drop a file into
/usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/site-start.d/ without owning that directory.  I
checked what other packages do and the examples I found seem to own it.  Most
also seem to drop the .el files into /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp instead of
keeping them with the package as ucblogo does, but I don't think this is a 

It looks like the documentation is about 25% of the installed size of the
package.  The whole package is only 4MB total so I don't think it warrants a
separate documentation subpackage.

* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.  License text included in package.
* source files match upstream:
   caf68577630645718492fd7d10fd4927  ucblogo-5.5.tar.gz
   caf68577630645718492fd7d10fd4927  ucblogo-5.5.tar.gz-srpm
* latest version is being packaged.
O BuildRequires are proper (after changing to texinfo-tex)
O package builds in mock (development, x86_64). (after fixing BR:s)
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   ucblogo = 5.5-2.fc6
* no shared libraries are present.
* package is not relocatable.
? owns the directories it creates (/usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/site-start.d?)
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* scriptlets present are sane.
* code, not content.
* documentation is not so small, but not so large that it needs to be in a
separate package.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* info files are installed
* not a GUI app.

Configure bugmail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

Fedora-package-review mailing list

Reply via email to