Bug 698953

Summary: Review Request: aspell-pt_BR - Brazilian Portuguese dictionaries for Aspell
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Ivana Varekova <varekova>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Jan Safranek <jsafrane>
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: rawhideCC: fedora-package-review, notting, wlima
Target Milestone: ---Flags: jsafrane: fedora-review+
dennis: fedora-cvs+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2011-04-29 08:47:42 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 674634    

Description Ivana Varekova 2011-04-22 12:21:25 UTC 
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/varekova/aspell-pt_BR.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/varekova/aspell-pt_BR-20090702-1.fc13.src.rpm

The upstream of Portuguese dictionary split the dictionary to two parts this
bug is for the European Portuguese part.
Comment 1 Jan Safranek 2011-04-26 08:17:01 UTC 
rpmlint output:
aspell-pt_BR.src:27: W: configure-without-libdir-spec

It has custom ./configure script, not autoconf.

aspell-pt_BR.x86_64: E: no-binary
aspell-pt_BR.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib

Both are caused by aspell design, it's data files are architecture dependent and these reports seem to be common to all aspell language packages.

All MUST/SHOULD package review items are ok, .spec file looks sane (apart from Epoch:50, which is another aspell oddity).

I approve the package.
Comment 2 Ivana Varekova 2011-04-26 09:47:36 UTC 
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: aspell-pt_BR
Short Description: Brazilian Portuguese dictionaries for Aspell
Owners: varekova
Branches: 
InitialCC:
Comment 3 William Lima 2011-04-26 13:30:18 UTC 
Next time, please fix your Review Summary.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Create_Your_Review_Request

You also made a SCM Request with no branches.
Comment 4 Dennis Gilmore 2011-04-26 16:31:58 UTC 
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Comment 5 William Lima 2011-04-26 16:46:43 UTC 
You can also remove BuildRoot tag [1] and %clean section [2].

[1] - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
[2] - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean

Looking at spec:

Obsoletes: aspell-pt <= 50:0.50
Provides: aspell-pt = %{epoch}:%{version}

is it right? since it's a pt-br package.
Comment 6 Ivana Varekova 2011-04-29 08:47:42 UTC 
Thanks, BuildRoot tag and the clean part.