Bug 225261 - Merge Review: aspell-cs
Summary: Merge Review: aspell-cs
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
(Show other bugs)
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Parag AN(पराग)
QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2007-01-29 21:03 UTC by Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:11 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2007-04-11 03:23:25 UTC
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
panemade: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-29 21:03:09 UTC
Fedora Merge Review: aspell-cs


Comment 1 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-03-28 04:37:28 UTC
Can you update SPEC as suggested in other aspell package reviews?

Comment 2 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-03-28 07:38:46 UTC
I saw new tarball available on upstream site aspell6-cs-20040614-1.tar.gz2. 
Can you update source in SPEC?

Comment 3 Ivana Varekova 2007-03-28 18:00:54 UTC
Thank you for your notice - fixed in aspell-cs-20040614-1.fc7.

Comment 4 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-03-29 03:44:37 UTC
+ package builds in mock (development i386).
- rpmlint is NOT silent for SRPM and RPM.
  But following messages are ignorable
  E: aspell-cs no-binary
  E: aspell-cs only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
  E: aspell-cs configure-without-libdir-spec
+ SPEC file contains explanation about above warnings.
+ source files match upstream.
50f0c2b7b6fcfe47bb647ad8993d2fe8  aspell6-cs-20040614-1.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-cs = 50:20040614-1.fc7
+ Not a GUI APP.


Comment 5 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-04-11 03:23:25 UTC
As build is available now, therefore CLOSING this review.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.