Bug 520204
Summary: | Review Request: aspell-ro - Romanian dictionary for Aspell | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Ionuț Arțăriși <mapleoin> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | low | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | alexxed, fedora-package-review, gholms, notting |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2010-12-13 14:07:12 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: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 201449 |
Description
Ionuț Arțăriși
2009-08-28 22:19:47 UTC
I am not a sponsor (or even a packager yet), however here are some informal comments based on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines rpmlint reports: aspell-ro.src:26: W: configure-without-libdir-spec - This one's OK because it isn't an autoconf-based configure. aspell-ro.x86_64: E: no-binary aspell-ro.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib - As far as I know these are OK simply because it's an aspell dictionary package. aspell-ro-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package - I don't think you need a debuginfo package for aspell dictionaries. If you add the line "%define debug_package %{nil}" to your spec file it won't try to build one. Ionut, please update the specfile for the most current upstream version of the dictionaries and I'll do the review. Since there are 2 dictionaries upstream, I suggest to pack them both (http://sourceforge.net/projects/rospell/files/Romanian%20dictionaries/dict-3.3.4/ro_RO-classic.3.3.4.zip/download and http://sourceforge.net/projects/rospell/files/Romanian%20dictionaries/dict-3.3.4/ro_RO.3.3.4.zip/download) and create 2 packages, aspell-ro and aspell-ro-classic. Ionut, please add "%define debug_package %{nil}" to your spec file, update it to include the most recent rospell dictionaries ( I suggest to include both aspell5-ro-3.3.4-classic.tar.bz2 and dict-3.3.4/aspell5-ro-3.3.4.tar.bz2 and to create 2 packages, one for each dictionary) and I'll do the review. I am giving up the revue due to lack of response from the submitter and lack of time from myself If the submitter's not responding, what is the point in keeping the ticket open at all? It doesn't appear that the submitter has ever responded, so I'm just going to close this. |