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-fa - Persian dictionaries for Aspell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210758 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael@xxxxxxx 2007-01-08 08:27 EST ------- Just some comments and hints: * Also run rpmlint on the built rpms: $ rpmlint ~/tmp/rpm/RPMS/aspell6-fa-0.10-0.i386.rpm W: aspell6-fa incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.10 0.10-0 E: aspell6-fa no-binary E: aspell6-fa only-non-binary-in-usr-lib W: aspell6-fa no-documentation At least the two "W"arnings are helpful. The "E"errors can be ignored with this package. * Why is the package called "aspell6-fa" when all other aspell language packages are called "aspell-*"? * The defined %lang macro is not used in "Source0" everywhere. * Creating a macro for the Aspell "0.60" version is highly recommended. * Summary says "Farsi" only, description says "Persian" only. For consistency and better results when searching package summaries, I would use the name "Farsi" also in the description. * Licence file COPYING is not included as %doc. * Don't include the aspell home directory, because it belongs into the aspell mother package already, and you require that package. $ rpmls -p aspell6-fa-0.10-0.i386.rpm |grep ^d drwxr-xr-x /usr/lib/aspell-0.60 Only include the files below that directory with this entry in the %files section: %{_libdir}/aspell-0.60/* * In your spec %changelog, specify the package version as full version-release, not just its version. Packages usually start with release 1, not 0. -- 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