Bug 225284 - Merge Review: aspell-sr
Summary: Merge Review: aspell-sr
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Parag AN(पराग)
QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2007-01-29 21:06 UTC by Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:11 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2007-04-11 03:32:28 UTC
panemade: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-29 21:06:11 UTC
Fedora Merge Review: aspell-sr


Comment 1 Roozbeh Pournader 2007-02-05 14:39:51 UTC
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

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

Comment 2 Ivana Varekova 2007-02-07 10:43:58 UTC
Fixed in aspell-sr-0.02-2.fc7

Comment 3 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-03-28 09:46:53 UTC
picking up this for review

Comment 4 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-03-28 09:49:54 UTC
Can you please change %build and %install section as suggested in other aspell
package review?

Comment 5 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-03-30 11:16:02 UTC
+ 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.


Comment 6 Vesselin Kolev 2007-04-05 15:54:42 UTC
There is the same problem in RHEL5:


Comment 7 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-04-09 04:06:11 UTC
what problem??
Can you specify what problem you found?

Comment 8 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-04-11 03:32:28 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.