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-mi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199386 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-07-20 15:55 EST ------- Odd that nobody else saw this, but rpmlint on the source package complains about: E: aspell-mi configure-without-libdir-spec The configure script isn't actually one generated by autoconf and doesn't accept --libdir, so this error is bogus. And, to reiterate, these errors: E: aspell-mi no-binary E: aspell-mi only-non-binary-in-usr-lib are also bogus as the aspell dictionaries are arch-dependent due to byte ordering. Note that the license is LGPL, not GPL. Since this is the only issue and it's just one letter, I'll approve this and you can fix it when you check in. Onto the review: * source files match upstream: 8b1a07032ee086662bfe44a2e0459db4 aspell-mi-0.50-0.tar.bz2 * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. X license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * Compiler flags are appropriate (nothing is compiled, so no need to pass them) * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). O rpmlint has only ignorable errors (see above). * debuginfo package necessarily disabled. * final provides and requires are sane: aspell-mi = 0.50-1.fc6 = aspell >= 12:0.60 * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * 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. APPROVED, just fix the license. -- 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@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review