Bug 189157

Some suggestions:

Add a comment explaining why the package can't be noarch.  (I'm assuming the
dictionary files are endian or word-length dependent, although the files are
exactly the same on i386 and x86_64.)  It would be nice to have some definitive
statement on the matter from the aspell authors; I looked through their
documentation but didn't see anything, and I have no PPC machine to test with.

Remove commented items in the specfile, like the Epoch: line or the last line of
%files.

Consider using a here document instead of a bunch of echo statements in %build.
 Personal taste; I think it just looks cleaner but it's up to you.

Issues:
rpmlint complains:
E: aspell-he no-binary
E: aspell-he only-non-binary-in-usr-lib

If we assume that endianness issues prevent the package form being noarch, both
of these are indeed pointless.  The package isn't supposed to have a binary and
it's not possible to put things in /usr/share because the data is not
system-independent.

* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written, uses macros consistently and
conforms to the Perl template.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible and is included as %doc.
* source files match upstream:
   f453989e1df364af9479e893c16ac9d8  aspell6-he-0.9-0.tar.bz2
   f453989e1df364af9479e893c16ac9d8  aspell6-he-0.9-0.tar.bz2-srpm
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (development, i386 and x86_64).
O rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane.
* no shared libraries are present.
* package is not relocatable.
* creates no non-doc directories.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* no %check present; no test suite upstream.
* content only, but clearly permissible.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.

I cleaned up the spec file as you asked, and put the new version in 
http://ivrix.org.il/redhat/aspell-he.spec and the new srpm in
http://ivrix.org.il/redhat/aspell-he-0.9-2.src.rpm .

As you asked, I asked the developer of Aspell, Kevin Atkinson, about the
byte-ordering issue. His brief reply, dated Sun, 23 Apr 2006 02:47:11 -0600
(MDT) follows:

On Sun, 23 Apr 2006, Dan Kenigsberg wrote:

>Dear Kevin,
>
>If you recall, once we were working together on the Hebrew support in
>aspell-0.60. I want to push this support into Fedora, but something about it
>worries their automated cleanliness-checking tool (rpmlint).
>
>Why does aspell's dictionaries sit under /usr/lib/aspell-0.60 ? What causes
>them to be architecture-dependent? Is it byte-order issues?

Yes, its byte-order.

Thanks for tracking down this explanation; this may have been known to the Core
aspell maintainer but in Extras we like to have the specfiles as
self-explanatory as possible.

Everything looks good, except for a couple of things which you can fix when
checking in.

Extras standards indicate that the buildroot should be:

%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)

and there's no reason to clean out the buildroot at the beginning of %prep.

APPROVED