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: mecab-jumandic - JUMAN dictorionary for MeCab https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229929 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede@xxxxxx 2007-03-04 06:13 EST ------- MUST: ===== * rpmlint output is: E: mecab-jumandic no-binary E: mecab-jumandic only-non-binary-in-usr-lib E: mecab-jumandic-EUCJP only-non-binary-in-usr-lib These are "normal" for this package and can be ignored * Package and spec file named appropriately * Packaged according to packaging guidelines * License ok * spec file is legible and in Am. English. * Source matches upstream * Compiles and builds on devel x86_64 * BR: ok * No locales * No shared libraries * Not relocatable * Package owns / or requires all dirs 0 No duplicate files & Permissions * %clean & macro usage OK * Contains code only * %doc does not affect runtime, and isn't large enough to warrent a sub package * no -devel package needed * no .desktop file required Must Fix: ========= * add %defattr(-,root,root,-) to %files EUCJP * add || : at the end of the %post sed lines, so that if sed fails for some reason this doesn't cause the entire rpm transaction to fail Questions: ========== * If one installs multiple dictionaries, the config file will only contain the last one installed, can mecab handle multiple dicts in the config file? * What happens if all dicts get uninstalled? -- 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