Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 210758
Review Request: aspell-fa - Persian dictionaries for Aspell
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:11:45 EST
Spec URL: http://mola.c100c.com/data/files/Spec%20file/aspell-fa.spec
SRPM URL: http://mola.c100c.com/data/files/fc5.srpm/aspell6-fa-0.10-0.src.rpm
Description: Provides the word list/dictionaries for the following: Persian
I'm blocking FE-NEEDSPONSOR because I don't see Mola's name in the cvsextras
group. Please remove it if this is incorrect. Mola, please see
It looks to me like you went to the account system to apply for sponsorship, but
you seem to have skipped a few steps. Or do you actually have a sponsor lined
up already? If not, I will deny your request in the account system and you can
re-apply when you are actually ready to do so.
hmm what step i forgot ?
fedora account ,
add cvsextras group
add package ?
like this page http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors
You seem to have skipped over the "Watch for Feedback" and "Get Sponsored" steps
from the document you cite.
Your package needs to be reviewed by a sponsor first, and then, if acceptable it
will be approved and then you can apply for cvsextras access. But please note
the following, quoted from the Contributors document you mention above:
However, please note that sponsorship is not automatic and may require that you
participate in the process of reviewing other packages in order to demonstrate
your understanding of the packaging guidelines. See Extras/HowToGetSponsored for
more information on the process of finding a sponsor.
The HowToGetSponsored page is the one I directed you to in comment #1.
update rpmlint warning
Specfile : http://www.c100c.com/fedora/aspell6-fa.spec
SRPM : http://www.c100c.com/fedora/aspell6-fa-0.10-0.src.rpm
Just some comments and hints:
* Also run rpmlint on the built rpms:
$ rpmlint ~/tmp/rpm/RPMS/aspell6-fa-0.10-0.i386.rpm
W: aspell6-fa incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.10 0.10-0
E: aspell6-fa no-binary
E: aspell6-fa only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
W: aspell6-fa no-documentation
At least the two "W"arnings are helpful. The "E"errors can be ignored
with this package.
* Why is the package called "aspell6-fa" when all other aspell language
packages are called "aspell-*"?
* The defined %lang macro is not used in "Source0" everywhere.
* Creating a macro for the Aspell "0.60" version is highly recommended.
* Summary says "Farsi" only, description says "Persian" only. For
consistency and better results when searching package summaries,
I would use the name "Farsi" also in the description.
* Licence file COPYING is not included as %doc.
* Don't include the aspell home directory, because it belongs into
the aspell mother package already, and you require that package.
$ rpmls -p aspell6-fa-0.10-0.i386.rpm |grep ^d
Only include the files below that directory with this entry in the
* In your spec %changelog, specify the package version as full
version-release, not just its version. Packages usually start with
release 1, not 0.
It's been five months since the last comment; is there still interest in getting
this package into the distribution?
i want to add this package
Spec URL: http://mola.c100c.com/data/files/Spec%20file/aspell6-fa.spec
SRPM URL: http://mola.c100c.com/data/files/Srpm/aspell6-fa-0.11-0.src.rpm
Package no longer on the server (why was the name aspell6-fa, anyway?). Should
this be closed?
This has been in NEEDINFO state for over a month now; I will close this ticket
soon if there is no response.
Another two weeks have passed; closing.