[Bug 199386] Review Request: aspell-mi

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]