Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: aspell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225286 ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx 2007-02-03 16:46 EST ------- Okay doing the merge review. Summary: There are things which need to be changed to meet the established review guidelines. Which I will go over in bloody detail below. However let me first say that I certaintly in agreement with Enrico concerning the perl dep issue and I would very much recommend that the perl script be moved to a subpackage or pushed into the docs section..whatever it takes to keep perl from being a hard requirement of the base package. Though the perl issue is outside of my strict mandate to for the merge review. I have attached a spec file diff which incorporate an attempt to fix the issues I list as blockers below. The package maintainer needs to review each of the spec changes and make sure they are valid, the work, and aren't contentious. If the package owner has a problem with anything I suggest, they need to report back into this bug so we can talk about it. Okay so on with the review aspell Checklist: + GOOD - BAD + rpmlint... see the notes at the end. I've rolled in changes into the spec from the rpmlint log + packagename is fine + specfile name is fine + license check LGPL in spec tag matches COPYING file in upstream source and COPYING file included in doc section + spec is english-ish + md5sum check of sources 17fd8acac6293336bcef44391b71e337 aspell-0.60.5.tar.gz from SOURCE URL 17fd8acac6293336bcef44391b71e337 rpmbuild/SOURCES/aspell-0.60.5.tar.gz from SRPM + mock build as done by matt + no buildrequires look good. + shared libs look fine ldconfig is being called in post preun as expected + not designed to be relocatable + no duplicates in the files section + file permissions look okay to me - locales.. not so good + headers in devel subpackage no static libs + docs section looks fine + no gui apps + no obvious duplicate file/directory ownership BAD: MUSTFIX: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. MUSTFIX: Need to rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in the install section. MUSTFIX: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). MUSTFIX: remove Prereq and use Requires(x) syntax for scriptlets rpmlint run from matt/dell: ... notes from reviewer inline rpmlint on ./aspell-debuginfo-0.60.5-2.fc7.i386.rpm rpmlint on ./aspell-devel-0.60.5-2.fc7.i386.rpm W: aspell-devel summary-ended-with-dot Static libraries and header files for Aspell development. ... fixed in spec diff rpmlint on ./aspell-0.60.5-2.fc7.i386.rpm E: aspell obsolete-not-provided ispell ... looks like a valid obsolete E: aspell obsolete-not-provided aspell-de E: aspell obsolete-not-provided aspell-fr E: aspell obsolete-not-provided aspell-ca E: aspell obsolete-not-provided aspell-da E: aspell obsolete-not-provided aspell-es E: aspell obsolete-not-provided aspell-it E: aspell obsolete-not-provided aspell-nl E: aspell obsolete-not-provided aspell-no E: aspell obsolete-not-provided aspell-sv ... since these are versioned obsoletes which have newer versions in the package tree these are completely bogus error messages. In fact, does aspell need to keep these obsoletes at all? E: aspell obsolete-not-provided aspell-pt_BR ... this doesnt have a current package which provides this. This is most likely a valid obsoletes, and a dead-end.. so no error. E: aspell obsolete-not-provided aspell-config ... this is no longer provided by anything. Is this a valid obsoletes? Is the pspell-config binary equivalent? If so can an aspell-config symlink be added and a Provides put in place? I'm honestly not sure about this error. Package owner will have to provide some backstory concerning this obsoletes. W: aspell file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/aspell.info.gz ... ewww uhm this is an upstream issue. I dont think we can just run iconv on a gzipped info file... perhaps rpmlint is just being silly here. rpmlint on ./aspell-0.60.5-2.fc7.src.rpm W: aspell prereq-use /sbin/install-info ... fixed with Requires(post) and Requires(preun) in spec diff W: aspell unversioned-explicit-provides pspell W: aspell unversioned-explicit-obsoletes ispell W: aspell unversioned-explicit-obsoletes pspell W: aspell unversioned-explicit-obsoletes aspell-pt_BR W: aspell unversioned-explicit-obsoletes aspell-config W: aspell unversioned-explicit-provides pspell-devel W: aspell unversioned-explicit-obsoletes pspell-devel W: aspell macro-in-%changelog doc ... reworded the changelog entry spec diff W: aspell macro-in-%changelog serial ... reworded the changelog entry in spec diff -- 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