https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305335
--- Comment #4 from Mukundan Ragavan <nonamed...@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Mattias Ellert from comment #3) > (In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #2) > > Complete review below - not too many issues here. > > > > Package Review > > ============== > > > > - Package have the default element marked as %%doc :doc, DESCRIPTION, > > CITATION > > > > ---> This looks fine. Already discussed before (bz#1305333, bz#1305334 > > Both DESCRIPTION and CITATION are used at runtime - should not be %doc. > Right! That's exactly what I was pointing to! perfect. > > - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. > > Note: R-Rcpp : /usr/lib64/R/library/Rcpp/skeleton/rcpp_hello_world.h > > > > ---> What about this file? Looking at the contents, this sounds like > > something that is appropriate in the main package. Please verify. > > This file is read from inside the code, e.g. Rcpp/R/Rcpp.package.skeleton.R > line 156: > header <- readLines(file.path(skeleton, "rcpp_hello_world.h")) > Sounds good! > > ===== MUST items ===== > > > > Generic: > > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > > found: "BSL", "BSL (v1.0)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or > > generated". 96 files have unknown license. Detailed output of > > licensecheck in > > > > /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1305335-R-Rcpp/licensecheck.txt > > > > > > ---> Multiple licenses must be mentioned in spec file. > > > > from licensecheck - > > > > > > BSL > > --- > > R-Rcpp-0.12.3/Rcpp/inst/include/Rcpp/utils/tinyformat.h > > > > BSL (v1.0) > > ---------- > > R-Rcpp-0.12.3/Rcpp/inst/include/Rcpp/macros/cat.hpp > > R-Rcpp-0.12.3/Rcpp/inst/include/Rcpp/macros/config.hpp > > > > GPL (v2 or later) > > ----------------- > > R-Rcpp-0.12.3/Rcpp/inst/examples/SugarPerformance/Timer.h > > R-Rcpp-0.12.3/Rcpp/inst/include/Rcpp.h > > R-Rcpp-0.12.3/Rcpp/inst/include/Rcpp/Benchmark/Timer.h > > R-Rcpp-0.12.3/Rcpp/inst/include/Rcpp/DataFrame.h > > R-Rcpp-0.12.3/Rcpp/inst/include/Rcpp/Date.h > > R-Rcpp-0.12.3/Rcpp/inst/include/Rcpp/DateVector.h > > [.....] > > > > Change spec file to > > > > License: GPLv2+ and BSL > > Thank you for this one. > License tag changed to "GPLv2+ and Boost". > > According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses the > proper tag for the Boost Software License is "Boost", not "BSL". > Thanks for fixing this! This is resolved. > > Rpmlint > > ------- > > Checking: R-Rcpp-0.12.3-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm > > R-Rcpp-devel-0.12.3-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm > > R-Rcpp-examples-0.12.3-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm > > R-Rcpp-debuginfo-0.12.3-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm > > R-Rcpp-0.12.3-1.fc24.src.rpm > > R-Rcpp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > > /usr/lib64/R/library/Rcpp/skeleton/stdVector.cpp > > R-Rcpp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > > /usr/lib64/R/library/Rcpp/skeleton/rcpp_hello_world.h > > R-Rcpp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > > /usr/lib64/R/library/Rcpp/skeleton/rcpp_module.cpp > > R-Rcpp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > > /usr/lib64/R/library/Rcpp/skeleton/rcpp_hello_world.cpp > > R-Rcpp.x86_64: E: non-executable-script > > /usr/lib64/R/library/Rcpp/discovery/cxx0x.R 644 /bin/env > > > > ---> Please check/clarify these ... > > > > R-Rcpp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > > /usr/lib64/R/library/Rcpp/skeleton/Num.cpp > > R-Rcpp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > > /usr/lib64/R/library/Rcpp/skeleton/rcpp_hello_world_attributes.cpp > > The R-Rcpp package is used to integrate C++ code with R. To simplify this > task the package provides a skeleton feature, which creates a template C++ > code that you can use a the starting point for your C++ integration. The > source files in the skeleton directory are used by this feature. So they are > not part of the source code that is compiled to create the R-Rcpp package > itself, but datafiles needed by one of the features the package provides. > Thanks for the explanation. This sounds good. -- 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 package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
