https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882999

José Matos <[email protected]> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |[email protected]
           Assignee|[email protected]    |[email protected]
              Flags|                            |fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from José Matos <[email protected]> ---
The license is correct and appropriated for Fedora. The spec file follows the
Fedora package guidelines.

In this cases these are the fedora-review complaints:

Issues:
=======
- Package have the default element marked as %%doc :DESCRIPTION
- Package requires R-core.
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
  BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
  Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/

The first is a bug as DESCRIPTION is not marked as %doc and the others are as
intended.

I must confess that I found the description puzzling due to the last sentence.
"This version calls lp_solve version 5.5."

My problem is with "calls" this is very overloaded here.
Essentially R-lpSolve has a copy of lp_Solve and provides an R interface to it.
Since the code is 15 years old I think that it is OK. "Although practicality
beats purity." (Zen of Python)

So the package is approved. 


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]

Reply via email to