[Bug 225980] Merge Review: latex2html
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=225980
Jindrich Novy jn...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|needinfo?(jn...@redhat.com) |
--- Comment #3 from Jindrich Novy jn...@redhat.com 2009-12-11 09:47:03 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #2)
[???] specfile is cleanly written.
The spec file contains a lot of perl one-liners.
Wouldn't it be better to write a patch that fixes the scripts generating
wrong paths
instead of those regular expressions?
Is it too difficult?
Yes, it is not trivial and it works so no need to break it.
[FAIL] license text included in package: license not included in the package
It is included in the source archive.
It should be installed in /usr/share/doc/latex2html-2008/
Added.
[NO] rpmlint is silent
$rpmlint ./latex2html-2008-3.fc13.src.rpm
latex2html.src:125: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build perl -pi
-es,${RPM_BUILD_ROOT},, l2hconf.pm
latex2html.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 79, tab: line
92)
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
$ rpmlint ./latex2html-2008-3.fc13.noarch.rpm
latex2html.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/latex2html/cweb2html/cweb2html 0644 /usr/bin/perl
latex2html.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/latex2html/docs/.latex2html-init
latex2html.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/jlatex2html/makeseg/makeseg 0644 /usr/bin/perl
latex2html.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/latex2html/makemap 0644
/usr/bin/perl
latex2html.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/jlatex2html/makemap
0644
/usr/bin/perl
latex2html.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/jlatex2html/cweb2html/makemake.pl /usr/local/bin/perl
latex2html.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/jlatex2html/cweb2html/makemake.pl 0644 /usr/local/bin/perl
latex2html.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/jlatex2html/cweb2html/cweb2html 0644 /usr/bin/perl
latex2html.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/latex2html/makeseg/makeseg 0644 /usr/bin/perl
latex2html.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/jlatex2html/docs/.latex2html-init
latex2html.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/latex2html/cweb2html/makemake.pl /usr/local/bin/perl
latex2html.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/latex2html/cweb2html/makemake.pl 0644 /usr/local/bin/perl
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 2 warnings.
Fixed.
[???] %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package
Documentation is not marked as %doc, and it is included
in both /usr/share/latex2html/doc and in /usr/share/jlatex2html
docs and example directory is now marked as %doc
It is not compiled (just the .tex source, no .dvi/pdf/ps)
It should be compiled, marked by %doc in %files, and it should not be
included in /usr/share/latex2html.
The file readme.hthtml should be in %doc
readme.hthtml is mistakenly twice in the tarball. The copy in the root is
bogus, thus deleted.
/usr/share/makeseg/makeseg.tex should be built and the .dvi/pdf/ps
should be included as %doc, but the .tex file should not be included.
Leaving makeseg as is because it ships the makeseg script as well.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225980] Merge Review: latex2html
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=225980 Karel Klíč kk...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Karel Klíč kk...@redhat.com 2009-12-11 10:58:18 EDT --- Shouldn't documentation in LaTeX format (.tex) be compiled to something more readable, e.g. PDF? There is no answer in packaging guideline. I am giving review+, because the package is good enough shape now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225980] Merge Review: latex2html
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=225980 --- Comment #5 from Jindrich Novy jn...@redhat.com 2009-12-11 11:38:15 EDT --- The TeX documentation is not essential wrt functionality of latex2html. The reason to ship the tex variant is that one can convert the tex file directly with latex2html if he wants to read it ;) This could be used to test latex2html. Furthermore pdf documentation is a bit wasteful as it is too big. Thanks for the review :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225980] Merge Review: latex2html
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=225980
--- Comment #2 from Karel Klíč kk...@redhat.com 2009-12-10 06:18:09 EDT ---
[YES] source files match upstream: 275ab6cfa8ca9328446b7f40d8dc302e
latex2html-2008.tar.gz
[YES] source files match upstream: 7951e334e313a1a88946a1171c72e78f
l2h-2K8-jp20081220.tar.gz
[YES] package meets naming and versioning guidelines
[YES] specfile is properly named, uses macros consistently
[???] specfile is cleanly written.
The spec file contains a lot of perl one-liners.
Wouldn't it be better to write a patch that fixes the scripts generating
wrong paths
instead of those regular expressions?
Is it too difficult?
[YES] dist tag is present
[YES] build root is correct
[YES] license field matches the actual license
[YES] license is open source-compatible
[FAIL] license text included in package: license not included in the package
It is included in the source archive.
It should be installed in /usr/share/doc/latex2html-2008/
[YES] latest version is being packaged
[YES] BuildRequires are proper
[YES] package builds in mock
[NO] rpmlint is silent
$rpmlint ./latex2html-2008-3.fc13.src.rpm
latex2html.src:125: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build perl -pi
-es,${RPM_BUILD_ROOT},, l2hconf.pm
latex2html.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 79, tab: line 92)
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
$ rpmlint ./latex2html-2008-3.fc13.noarch.rpm
latex2html.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/latex2html/cweb2html/cweb2html 0644 /usr/bin/perl
latex2html.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/latex2html/docs/.latex2html-init
latex2html.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/jlatex2html/makeseg/makeseg 0644 /usr/bin/perl
latex2html.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/latex2html/makemap 0644
/usr/bin/perl
latex2html.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/jlatex2html/makemap 0644
/usr/bin/perl
latex2html.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/jlatex2html/cweb2html/makemake.pl /usr/local/bin/perl
latex2html.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/jlatex2html/cweb2html/makemake.pl 0644 /usr/local/bin/perl
latex2html.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/jlatex2html/cweb2html/cweb2html 0644 /usr/bin/perl
latex2html.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/latex2html/makeseg/makeseg 0644 /usr/bin/perl
latex2html.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/jlatex2html/docs/.latex2html-init
latex2html.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/latex2html/cweb2html/makemake.pl /usr/local/bin/perl
latex2html.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/latex2html/cweb2html/makemake.pl 0644 /usr/local/bin/perl
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 2 warnings.
[YES] final provides and requires look sane
[OK] %check is not present
[YES] no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths in app
package
[YES] owns the directories it creates
[YES] doesn't own any directories it shouldn't
[YES] no duplicates in %files
[YES] file permissions are appropriate
[YES] scriptlets ok
[YES] code, not content
[YES] documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary
[???] %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package
Documentation is not marked as %doc, and it is included
in both /usr/share/latex2html/doc and in /usr/share/jlatex2html
It is not compiled (just the .tex source, no .dvi/pdf/ps)
It should be compiled, marked by %doc in %files, and it should not be
included in /usr/share/latex2html.
The file readme.hthtml should be in %doc
/usr/share/makeseg/makeseg.tex should be built and the .dvi/pdf/ps
should be included as %doc, but the .tex file should not be included.
[YES] no headers
[YES] no pkgconfig files
[YES] no libtool .la droppings
[YES] not a GUI app
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225980] Merge Review: latex2html
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=225980 Karel Klíč kk...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review?, ||needinfo?(jn...@redhat.com) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225980] Merge Review: latex2html
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=225980 Karel Klíč kk...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kk...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|kk...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225980] Merge Review: latex2html
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: latex2html https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225980 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 22:38 EST --- good: + source matches upstream needswork: - The license looks problematic (it has a no fees or compensation clause) and the package does not include a copy of it despite the explicit terms saying it must be prominently carried on all copies. I'll continue with the review but the license bits probably (?) need attention first. -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
