Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/fed500/aspell-sw/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01305673-aspell-sw/aspell-sw.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/fed500/aspell-sw/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01305673-aspell-sw/aspell-sw-0.50-0.fc33.src.rpm Description: Aspell-sw contains the Swahili dictionary for Aspell Fedora Account System Username: Fed500 This Aspell-sw package is also hosted in COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fed500/aspell-sw/ This is my first Fedora package, so I need a sponsor. It would be greatly appreciated if you can sponsor me. Thanks.
Sorry, I don't have the authority to sponsor you. I can review the package for you, but you should open a new bugzilla against Package Review component and block FE-NEEDSPONSOR. Or you can reassign this one I suppose.
Added block FE-NEEDSPONSOR
but where can one use this aspell dictionary? I thought hunspell dictionaries are being used default dictionaries.
While Hunspell Kiswahili dictionary is provided in the Fedora repositories, Aspell Kiswahili dictionary is not. It would be nice to have it so that users can choose the one that is most appropriate to their needs. Aspell also seems to be a little faster than Hunspell (http://aspell.net/test/cur/) so user experience can be better.
>Epoch: 50 If this is a new package for Fedora, then there should be no Epoch. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_epoch_tag >%install >rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Don't do this. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections
Thanks for the feedback. Updated Spec file at: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/fed500/aspell-sw/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01307066-aspell-sw/aspell-sw.spec which corresponds to the build at: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fed500/aspell-sw/build/1307066/ Packaging guidelines, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_obtaining_the_correct_keys suggest using GPG verification for the signature https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/aspell/dict/sw/aspell-sw-0.50-0.tar.bz2.sig but the key (http://aspell.net/dict-upload-key.txt) is old does not seem to have been uploaded to any server. None of the other Aspell language directories seem to have key verification. Should this step be skipped? If not, how should the key file be uploaded (documentation suggests to upload, but does not indicate procedure to do this so that the verification step passes)?
> None of the other Aspell language directories seem to have key verification. That's because all the other aspell dictionaries predate the current packaging guidelines by a long time. > Should this step be skipped? If not, how should the key file be uploaded (documentation suggests to upload, but does not indicate procedure to do this so that the verification step passes)? The guidelines say: If the upstream project does not publish a keyring file, then you may need to create a keyring after you have verified the key. In this case there is no upstream URL to the keyring, so instead you should document how you created the keyring in a comment in the spec file. The keyring file should be commited to dist-git.
A couple of notes: - version-release in %changelog doesn't match Version and Release - release number shouldn't be 0 - use %global instead of %define - consider using %configure, %make_build and %make_install macros - there is a COPYING license file, it should be installed and marked with %license - Copyright should be probably marked with %license too - how did you come up with "MIT and BSD" license? the package seems to be distributed under LGPLv2
Thanks for the corrections. Updated the Spec file: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/aspell-sw/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01308878-aspell-sw/aspell-sw.spec It builds on Fedora, but not all of other architectures available in Copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fed500/aspell-sw/build/1308878/
You are not using macros in Source1 URL, why not? "0.50:2004-03-29-0" in changelog is still wrong, it should be "0.50-1"? Tip: if you set Release to "0%{?dist}" and run rpmdev-bumpspec on the spec file, it will generate the changelog entry for you.
Updated. New version at: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/aspell-sw/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01308935-aspell-sw/aspell-sw.spec Added macros to Source1 URL. Thanks. Updated change log to "0.50-1" - I guess "0.50-0-1" would overcomplicate things since tag can be updated if there is a new language release.
Well, you should remove the original changelog entry (or merge the two). > Updated change log to "0.50-1" - I guess "0.50-0-1" would overcomplicate things since tag can be updated if there is a new language release. Actually, if %langrelease can change independently of Version, it should be part of Release. So the first Fedora release would be "1.%{langrelease}%{?dist}", the second "2.%{langrelease}%{?dist}" and so on. See [1]. [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_more_complex_versioning
Thanks. Updated: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/aspell-sw/fedora-rawhide-armhfp/01308977-aspell-sw/aspell-sw.spec
There is a dot missing between pkgrel and extraver. A few more nitpicks: %aspellversion macro is not used anywhere, there is inconsistency in case-sensitivity of BuildRequires tags.
Ok. Removed %aspellversion macro, but it is used in other Aspell dictionaries see: https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/aspell/dict/0index.html Updated spec file at: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/aspell-sw/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01309074-aspell-sw/aspell-sw.spec
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the submitter to proceed with the review. If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take this ticket. Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.
Benson, are you still interested in packaging this?
Yes, still interested in having this available to other users.
SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/aspell-sw/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04999821-aspell-sw/aspell-sw.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/aspell-sw/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04999821-aspell-sw/aspell-sw-0.50-2.0.fc38.src.rpm
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket reviewer failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we reset the status and the assignee of this ticket.