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-pt - Portuguese hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228495 wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-14 05:44 EST ------- There are two dictionaries included, for pt_PT and pt_BR; each one comes with a Readme file (Leia-me.pdf). As they are not completely identical (for instance ine of them clarifies the license, while the other does not), please consider packaging them both GOOD - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream , sha1sum 0f000c39d4879c5008efe51d34daea89a94da271 pt_BR-2700g.zip 5b6c2f9d6e45b185174e2950e2b1e3a9fa1b6dd4 pt_PT-2700C.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) - MUSTFIX the license (GPL) stated in the tag is not the same as the web site says. http://www.broffice.org.br/?q=docs claims "Creative Commons (padrão) - GNU FDL - ODL" while one of the included readme files claims LGPL. - the package includes just word lists + docs 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 please fix the differences between the license tag and the ones from upstream and I will approve the package. Please also try to persuade upstream to include the licenses in the archives. -- 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