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: hunspell-lt - Lithuanian hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228484 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-13 18:56 EST ------- GOOD - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream, is the last available version , sha1sum adbd9ce3c1655ecb524d79d98a4c4c0c6691a76f lt_LT-1.1+cvs20061127.zip - the package builds in mock for devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is consistent with the fact that basically it includes only 3 text files) - the license BSD stated in the tag is the same as the web site says; it is not included in the package because upstream did not include it either - there are only 2 files (word lists) + a short doc with instructions and license clearance, so no need for -doc and no .la, .pc, static files - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - rpmlint output is silent - code, not content - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file SHOULD: please ask upstream to include the license file (they reference it in README.EN but they did not include it) I think that it would not hurt to include the INSTRUCIJOS.TXT file, too in %doc APPROVED -- 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