[Bug 228489] Review Request: hunspell-nb - Bokmaal hunspell dictionaries

[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: hunspell-nb - Bokmaal hunspell dictionaries


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228489


wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    |wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163779
              nThis|                            |
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+




------- Additional Comments From wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  2007-02-13 19:16 EST -------
upstreamid (and therefore version) is wrong, should be either 08-may-2006 (zip
file date) or 28-apr-2006 (date of included files)


GOOD

- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines 
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream , sha1sum 
bcc117e0b31b6284346ce7beba9149176a6492ee  nb_NO.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 GPL stated in the tag is the same as the web site and the included
documentation say; 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 


APPROVED but please fix the version before uploading to CVS; you should also ask
upstream to include the license in the archive

-- 
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]