Can you Change %build and %install section as per suggested in other aspell-en
review?

Thanks for your notice - fixed in aspell-ca-0.50-6.fc7.

Review:
+ package builds in mock (development i386).
- rpmlint is NOT silent for SRPM and RPM.
  But following messages are ignorable
  E: aspell-ca no-binary
  E: aspell-ca only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
  E: aspell-ca configure-without-libdir-spec
+ SPEC file contains explanation about above warnings.
+ source files match upstream.
c593ae266d3e48e4d482ff9b9a52acdd  aspell-ca-0.50-2.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-ca = 50:0.50-6.fc7
+ Not a GUI APP.

APPROVED.

As build is available now, therefore CLOSING this review.