Bug 228488 - Review Request: hunspell-ms - Malay hunspell dictionaries
Summary: Review Request: hunspell-ms - Malay hunspell dictionaries
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: manuel wolfshant
QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-ACCEPT
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2007-02-13 11:31 UTC by Caolan McNamara
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:11 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2007-02-19 14:21:33 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
manuel.wolfshant: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Caolan McNamara 2007-02-13 11:31:41 UTC
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-ms.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-ms-0.20050117-1.src.rpm
Description: Malay hunspell dictionaries


Similar to 227811

Comment 1 manuel wolfshant 2007-02-14 00:09:09 UTC
GOOD

- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines 
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream , sha1sum 
12c033608d031ded21219757ac26f3b5bc0d37d7  ms_MY.zip
- the package builds in mock for devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is
consistent with the fact that basically it includes only 3 text files)
- the license ( GFDL ) stated in the tag is the same as the web site and an
included txt file say; it is not included in the package because upstream did
not include it either
- there are only 2 files (word lists) + a short doc with instructions and
license clearance, so no need for -doc and no .la, .pc, static files
- no missing BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other
files/dirs
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- rpmlint output is silent
- code, not content
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file 

SHOULD: please ask upstream to include the license in the archive; I think that
it would be a good idea if you could persuade them to hink again about the
license they use, as GFDL seems a bit restrictive and is not very "loved" in
Fedora  (and Debian...)

APPROVED

Comment 2 Caolan McNamara 2007-02-19 14:21:33 UTC
 27805 (hunspell-ms): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded.


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