Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 403911
Review Request: aspell-ml - Malayalam wordlist for GNU Aspell
Last modified: 2008-08-12 13:21:02 EDT
Spec URL: http://download.savannah.nongnu.org/releases/smc/Spellchecker/aspell-ml.spec SRPM URL: http://download.savannah.nongnu.org/releases/smc/Spellchecker/aspell-ml-0.04-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: Malayalam Wordlist for GNU Aspell Spelling Checker
Rajeesh, I would like to sponsor you provided you will start posting preliminary (unofficial) reviews to other new package review requests.
Rajneesh, Have you started reviewing to others packages?
Parag, I've started unofficially reviewing packages, here goes the first one : #416461 - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=416461
Parag, that looks like a strange request to me (coming from debian background). If the package is of good quality and people want to use it, what stops it from being included in the repository? It would be definitely good for people to review other people's work but that should not be a condition for including this work (again the way debian does it looks right to me). It is a very important package and delay in getting it included would not help anyone. If the packaging meets the quality requirements of Fedora project I hope to see it accepted soon.
Blocking this review for Sponsor Needed
Requesting any peoples watching this review to feel free to sponsor this package submitter. About sponsoring someone, I prefer to follow => "The best ways for you to illustrate your understanding of the packaging guidelines are to submit quality packages and to assist with package reviews. Prospective sponsors will want to see what reviews you have done, so go ahead and tell them when you submit your first package review request and add comments to your open review ticket with information about your activities." ---from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored "So what's the downside to sponsoring someone? By sponsoring someone, you are committing to the fact that if they break something you will fix it (or help them in fixing it)." ---from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored Or good if you package hunspell-ml and swanlekha also and submit to Fedora, that will be easy for sponsoring you :)
I've reviewed another package, here - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=430441
Another one - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=430541
rajeesh, Thanks for looking those 2 packages. But sorry to say thats not enough review of checking rpm is building and rpmlint is silent. Just have a look at what should you look while reviewing any package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines For https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=430441 review, I don't see any problem installing in manl directory as its one of standard directory of man pages. Just have a look at /usr/share/man/manl/
Thanks for the quick reply, Parag. By mentioning 'spec file looks fine' on each of them, what I meant is all the MUST and SHOULD are satisfied. Had there been any discrepancy, I would have mentioned it clearly. If you want me to pinpoint each of the points, I can. For #430441, I wasn't sure whether /usr/share/man/manl/ is a valid one or not. Thanks a lot for the clarification.
(In reply to comment #4) > Parag, that looks like a strange request to me (coming from debian background). > If the package is of good quality and people want to use it, what stops it from > being included in the repository? > > It would be definitely good for people to review other people's work but that > should not be a condition for including this work (again the way debian does it > looks right to me). There are multiple differences and it wouldn't be suitable to expand on all of that in a review request but briefly, Fedora sponsors the submitter (as opposed to just the package) and then gives commit and upload access to not only the individual package but nearly the entire repository. So it make sense for the proposed maintainer to demonstrate reasonable amount of understanding of packaging guidelines. The way they demonstrate that understanding is by reviewing other packages before getting sponsored. This process is comparatively very light weight.
Hello, Here's a detailed review of another package : https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252049
Rahul, Thanks for explaining the difference. I was trying to compare the two processes and it makes sense now. In debian world it would be similar to getting official DD (Debian Developer) status which could even last years to complete.
I am moving away from this review now. Praveen, you better look for some one from existing fedora community to get this package in F10 now.
Parag, we were looking upto F9 as a perfect solution for all Malayalam issues and even after doing al the necessary steps from our side, this response is really disappointing. It looks like Fedora does not care for our language and I'm moving on. Now I don't care what happens with Fedora - it is disappointing, but it is not the only distro available. There are others like debian who care for our language and are responsible to our comments and requests.
The sponsorship process does have a single point failure. One person stepping away from a package review does not prevent you getting sponsored or getting a package into Fedora. There are hundreds of packages waiting on review/sponsorship currently and does not reflect anything specific about this one. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored details the process and has a list of sponsors you can get in touch with. Ask in #fedora-devel or post to fedora fonts list if you need additional help https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-fonts-list/
Rahul, this is not an isolated incident. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433584 for example. We see the response as "we don't care about Malayalam".
Bugzilla is not a discussion forum. Ideally those want to include new packages will submit it for review themselves and get others in the community involved to review and approve it and not necessarily rely on specific people. Regardless of that, smc-fonts package already been submitted for review and will follow due process to get included which is not tied up to releases. Feel free to drop me a line offlist or catch me on IRC if you want to discuss this more.
Time to take some actions on this stalled review. 1)This package needs some changes to be done in SPEC file. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Note that this package, like other aspell's language packs, does not come up # cleanly through rpmlint, but with the following errors: # E: aspell-ml no-binary # E: aspell-ml only-non-binary-in-usr-lib # This is because the package contains only data files which sit under /usr/lib. # They have to stay there, as they are architecture-dependent (due to # byte-ordering issues). # E: aspell-ml configure-without-libdir-spec # The configure script isn't actually one generated by autoconf and doesn't accept # --libdir, so this error is bogus. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Add above text in end of %description section in spec. 2) Update Source as well as URL in spec as URL: http://aspell.net/ Source: ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/aspell/dict/ml/aspell-%{lang}-%{version}-%{langrelease}.tar.bz2 3) change version to Version: 0.03 If version 0.04 is really out then can you please make it upstream at ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/aspell/dict/0index.html so that we can continue with same 0.04 packaged source in SRPM. Or provide direct download link in Source: tag in SPEC for 0.04 tarball. 4) make sure that when you do some change in SPEC, you should increase release tag and add Changelog for what changes you did.
F9 is coming with new feature http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureDictionary. You can see that to have complete Dictionary support for Malayalam language in Fedora you should submit hunspell-ml package also as suggested already in comment #6 Picking this package for official review.
Updated the SPEC and SRPM files. Version has been changed back to 0.03 as version 0.04 is not yet upstream. Spec URL: http://download.savannah.nongnu.org/releases/smc/Spellchecker/aspell-ml.spec SRPM URL: http://download.savannah.gnu.org/releases/smc/Spellchecker/aspell-ml-0.03-2.fc9.src.rpm
Thanks for your updates. 1)I think you should not mix commented text with %description. 2)Use absolute path for Source URL. Source0: ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/aspell/dict/%{lang}/aspell6-%{lang}-%{version}-%{langrelease}.tar.bz2
Please clarify point 1) in Comment#22. In Comment#19, point 1) is to add this comment at the end of %description, right?
(In reply to comment #23) > Please clarify point 1) in Comment#22. In Comment#19, point 1) is to add this > comment at the end of %description, right? Sure. Looks like I confused you. you have done correct changes. Just to have clean looking SPEC, I suggested to have one blank line in between %description text and commented text. This is not blocker for this review. I will leave this to you.
Also, I will suggest like other Indic aspell specs you should write description text as %description GNU Aspell Malayalam Dictionary Package. Malayalam wordlist for this package is prepared by Santhosh Thottingal <santhosh00 at gmail dot com>, Swathanthra Malayalam Computing AND Summary to Summary: GNU Aspell Malayalam Dictionary Package
All the changes mentioned are done, and files are uploaded in the same location specified in Comment#21
Please make sure that whenever you did some changes in SPEC then increase release count by 1 and add appropriate changelog like what things you added/removed from old SPEC to newly submitted SPEC.
Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). koji build => http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=610180 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream. 5ac03b3b0d0618b0aa470c9f5ac46866 aspell6-ml-0.03-1.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 files present. + BuildRequires are proper. + defattr usage is correct. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code. + no static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + no translations are available. + Does owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + no scriptlets are used. + Package aspell-ml-0.03-2.fc10 -> Requires: aspell >= 12:0.60 + Not a GUI app. APPROVED.
Rajeesh, What is your Fedora account system name? You need to follow now http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CVSAdminProcedure also check more on review process at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageReviewProcess.
Parag, My fedora account is - rajeeshknambiar I couldn't put the request for CVS module as fedora-cvs flag couldn't be set.
Will you please check if you have finished all steps given at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#head-a601c13b0950a89568deafa65f505b4b58ee869b ?
Rajeesh, I have sponsored you now :) You should try to set fedora-cvs flag to ? If still you see some problem then wait for 1 hour and then try.
Thanks, Parag. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: aspell-ml Short Description: GNU Aspell Malayalam Dictionary Package Owners: rajeeshknambiar Branches: F-7 F-8 F-9 InitialCC: panemade Cvsextras Commits: yes
cvs done.
Rajeesh, You should now go through steps from 10 to 18 given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join to build your package for all requested Fedora branches.
Package built successfully. Closing the bugzilla entry.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: aspell-ml New Branches: EL-4 EL-5