Bug 225284
| Summary: | Merge Review: aspell-sr | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Parag AN(पराग) <panemade> |
| Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | roozbeh, varekova, vlk |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | panemade:
fedora-review+
|
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2007-04-11 03:32:28 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
2007-01-29 21:06:11 UTC
BLOCKER: spec filename is not %{name}.spec
From the review guidelines:
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
The spec file is actually named "-sl", instead of "-sr".
Fixed in aspell-sr-0.02-2.fc7 picking up this for review Can you please change %build and %install section as suggested in other aspell package review? Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). - rpmlint is NOT silent for SRPM and RPM. But following messages are ignorable E: aspell-sr no-binary E: aspell-sr only-non-binary-in-usr-lib E: aspell-sr configure-without-libdir-spec + SPEC file contains explanation about above warnings. + source files match upstream. a068ba095e7246fd3bbc92e7d0287998 aspell6-sr-0.02.tar.bz2 + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is small; no -doc subpackage required. + %doc does not affect runtime. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + no translations are available. + Dose owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + Requires: aspell >= 12:0.60 + Provides: aspell-sr = 50:0.02-3.fc7 + Not a GUI APP. APPROVED. There is the same problem in RHEL5: ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/5Server/en/os/SRPMS/aspell-sr-0.02-1.2.1.src.rpm what problem?? Can you specify what problem you found? As build is available now, therefore CLOSING this review. |