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: R-widgetTools-1.12.0-2 - Tools to support the construction of tcltk widgets https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241081 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-26 15:43 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #3, Xavier) > > Also, i see no license text or file in this package. > > Are you under the impression that this is mandatory? If there's a license > file > in the upstream tarball then it has to be included in the package. If > upstream > includes no license file then the package maintainer certainly doesn't have to > manufacture one. surely not, i just pasted a note. However, there're some packaging draft that talk about the why a license text is usefull. > > > (In reply to comment #4, Spot) > > It is possible to put noarch R packages into %{_datadir}/R/library, instead > > of > > in %{_libdir}/R/library (where arch-specific R packages should go). > > That's great; do you just do the usual R CMD INSTALL and give the other > directory? Does this work for FC6 and F7? > > > I'd argue that the DESCRIPTION is a useful %doc item. > > I certainly agree; rpm -q --info certainly does not give the same information > as > is present in the DESCRIPTION file. I really don't understand why Xavier > would > make such a comment unless he didn't actually look at what's in the file. i looked the file, and it's why I commented about that, if you look close, sure there's some things that dismatch between rpm -q [package-name] --info and DESCRIPTION are the maintainers, the date of the packaged and the packager, etc. AFAIK the maintainer of the package (rpm) which should be mentione is the fedoraproject (just my guess). Note that some end-users could be confused "who is who ?" or "what is what ?" here is a exmeple output of rpm -q [package_name] --info command: --------------------------------------------------------------- $ rpm -q glade2 --info Name : glade2 Relocations: (not relocatable) Version : 2.12.1 Vendor: Red Hat, Inc. Release : 5.fc6 Build Date: Fri 08 Sep 2006 01:03:55 PM AST Install Date: Thu 05 Jul 2007 12:56:02 PM AST Build Host: hs20-bc1-7.build.redhat.com Group : Development/Tools Source RPM: glade2-2.12.1-5.fc6.src.rpm Size : 5171445 License: GPL Signature : DSA/SHA1, Tue 03 Oct 2006 09:49:46 PM AST, Key ID b44269d04f2a6fd2 Packager : Red Hat, Inc. <http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla> URL : http://glade.gnome.org/ Summary : A GTK+ GUI builder. Description : Glade is a free user interface builder for GTK+ and the GNOME GUI desktop. Glade can produce C source code. Support for C++, Ada95, Python, and Perl is also available, via external tools which process the XML interface description files output by GLADE. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Also, i'm wondering if a lil' packaging guideline for R package could be usefull -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- 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 [email protected] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
