Bug 465944 - Review Request: perl-Text-SpellChecker - OO interface for spell-checking a block of text
Summary: Review Request: perl-Text-SpellChecker - OO interface for spell-checking a bl...
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 Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2008-10-07 10:26 UTC by Paul Howarth
Modified: 2008-10-09 22:51 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-10-09 22:51:19 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
manuel.wolfshant: fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Paul Howarth 2008-10-07 10:26:47 UTC
Spec URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/perl-Text-SpellChecker/perl-Text-SpellChecker.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/perl-Text-SpellChecker/perl-Text-SpellChecker-0.03-1.fc10.src.rpm
Description:

This module is built on Text::Aspell, but adds some of the functionality
provided by the internal gnu aspell API. This allows one to deal with blocks
of text, rather than just words. For instance, we provide methods for
iterating through the text, serializing the object (thus remembering where we
left off), and highlighting the current misspelled word within the text.

Comment 1 manuel wolfshant 2008-10-07 10:45:20 UTC
Package Review
==============

Key:
 - = N/A
 x = Check
 ! = Problem
 ? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
 [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.
 [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Perl specific items
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture.
     Tested on: devel/x86_64
 [x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPM:empty
 [x] Package is not relocatable.
 [x] Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
 [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     License type: GPL+ or Artistic (same as perl)
 [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
 [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
 [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.
     SHA1SUM of package: 5ff88f9bc19dfd7e52c5ef18fe56048b2bf4ffc4 Text-SpellChecker-0.03.tar.gz
 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [-] The spec file handles locales properly.
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
 [x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
 [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
 [x] Permissions on files are set properly.
 [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}.
 [x] Package consistently uses macros.
 [x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
 [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
 [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
 [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
 [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
 [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application.
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [x] Latest version is packaged.
 [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
 [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
 [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
     Tested on: devel/x86_64
 [?] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
     Not tested , but it's a standard perl module and should work anywhere
 [?] Package functions as described.
 [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
 [-] File based requires are sane.



================
*** APPROVED ***
================

Comment 2 Paul Howarth 2008-10-07 10:56:54 UTC
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: perl-Text-SpellChecker
Short Description: OO interface for spell-checking a block of text
Owners: pghmcfc
Branches: F-8 F-9 EL-4 EL-5
InitialCC: perl-sig

Thanks for the rapid review!

Comment 3 Kevin Fenzi 2008-10-07 17:47:53 UTC
cvs done.

Comment 4 Fedora Update System 2008-10-07 23:35:04 UTC
perl-Text-SpellChecker-0.03-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Text-SpellChecker-0.03-1.fc9

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2008-10-07 23:35:57 UTC
perl-Text-SpellChecker-0.03-1.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Text-SpellChecker-0.03-1.fc8

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2008-10-09 21:27:24 UTC
perl-Text-SpellChecker-0.03-1.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2008-10-09 21:34:18 UTC
perl-Text-SpellChecker-0.03-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 9 Paul Howarth 2008-10-09 22:51:19 UTC
I think we're done here now. Thanks everybody.


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