BLOCKER: spec filename is not %{name}.spec

From the review guidelines:
  MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
  %{name}.spec

The spec file is actually named "-sl", instead of "-sr".

Fixed in aspell-sr-0.02-2.fc7

picking up this for review

Can you please change %build and %install section as suggested in other aspell
package review?

Review:
+ package builds in mock (development i386).
- rpmlint is NOT silent for SRPM and RPM.
  But following messages are ignorable
  E: aspell-sr no-binary
  E: aspell-sr only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
  E: aspell-sr configure-without-libdir-spec
+ SPEC file contains explanation about above warnings.
+ source files match upstream.
a068ba095e7246fd3bbc92e7d0287998  aspell6-sr-0.02.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-sr = 50:0.02-3.fc7
+ Not a GUI APP.

APPROVED.

There is the same problem in RHEL5:

ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/5Server/en/os/SRPMS/aspell-sr-0.02-1.2.1.src.rpm

what problem??
Can you specify what problem you found?

As build is available now, therefore CLOSING this review.