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-pl - Polish hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228493 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Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-14 04:43 EST ------- %Source is no longer valid. The very same file is available as http://www.kurnik.pl/dictionary/alt-myspell-pl.tar.bz2 but a newer version has been released as http://www.kurnik.pl/dictionary/alt-myspell-pl-20070214.tar.bz2 Please consider updating %{upstreamid} and %Source before importing GOOD - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream , sha1sum 7fa4e8a72290c53dedb1eee1f0a144a4ce77a27e alt-myspell-pl.tar.bz2 (upstream) 7fa4e8a72290c53dedb1eee1f0a144a4ce77a27e alt-myspell-pl-20060823.tar.bz2 (included) - 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 one of the four (!) specified in the archive bundle; the three others are LGPL, MPL (Mozilla Public License) and Creative Commons ShareAlike v1; I am not sure at the moment which one should be picked, but I guess GPL is a safe bet. None of the four licenses is included in the archive, so the rpm does not include them either. Please also see my comment below. - 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 Caolan, please consider updating to latest version before importing. And maybe you can persuade upstream to include the license files in the archive... Comment: if anyone has objections against using GPL for the license tag, please do explain your rationale, I am eager to learn. The wiki says just "Alternately, if code is dual licensed, and one of the licenses meets the open source license criteria, that code can be included in Fedora under the open source license." which does not cover the case when several OSI approved licenses are available. And unfortunately at the moment there is no one on #fedora-extras with proper knowledge in this area. I am approving the package anyway because none of the licenses is a blocker and if needed the tag can be modified later. -- 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