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-ipadic - IPA dictorionary for MeCab https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231486 j.w.r.degoede@xxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |j.w.r.degoede@xxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede@xxxxxx 2007-03-24 03:46 EST ------- MUST: ===== * rpmlint output is: W: mecab-ipadic invalid-license MIT-ish (See LICENSE.*) E: mecab-ipadic no-binary E: mecab-ipadic only-non-binary-in-usr-lib W: mecab-ipadic-EUCJP invalid-license MIT-ish (See LICENSE.*) E: mecab-ipadic-EUCJP only-non-binary-in-usr-lib W: mecab-ipadic invalid-license MIT-ish (See LICENSE.*) These are "normal" for this package and can be ignored * Package and spec file named appropriately * Packaged according to packaging guidelines * License ok (approved by Spot) * 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 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