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: aspell-he https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189157 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-04-23 01:56 EST ------- Some suggestions: Add a comment explaining why the package can't be noarch. (I'm assuming the dictionary files are endian or word-length dependent, although the files are exactly the same on i386 and x86_64.) It would be nice to have some definitive statement on the matter from the aspell authors; I looked through their documentation but didn't see anything, and I have no PPC machine to test with. Remove commented items in the specfile, like the Epoch: line or the last line of %files. Consider using a here document instead of a bunch of echo statements in %build. Personal taste; I think it just looks cleaner but it's up to you. Issues: rpmlint complains: E: aspell-he no-binary E: aspell-he only-non-binary-in-usr-lib If we assume that endianness issues prevent the package form being noarch, both of these are indeed pointless. The package isn't supposed to have a binary and it's not possible to put things in /usr/share because the data is not system-independent. * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written, uses macros consistently and conforms to the Perl template. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible and is included as %doc. * source files match upstream: f453989e1df364af9479e893c16ac9d8 aspell6-he-0.9-0.tar.bz2 f453989e1df364af9479e893c16ac9d8 aspell6-he-0.9-0.tar.bz2-srpm * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, i386 and x86_64). O rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane. * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. * creates no non-doc directories. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * no %check present; no test suite upstream. * content only, but clearly permissible. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. -- 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.