Bug 520204 - Review Request: aspell-ro - Romanian dictionary for Aspell
Review Request: aspell-ro - Romanian dictionary for Aspell
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
low Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
:
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-DEADREVIEW
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2009-08-28 18:19 EDT by Ionuț Arțăriși
Modified: 2010-12-13 09:07 EST (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-12-13 09:07:12 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Ionuț Arțăriși 2009-08-28 18:19:47 EDT
Spec URL: http://mapleoin.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/aspell-ro/aspell-ro.spec
SRPM URL: http://mapleoin.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/aspell-ro/aspell-ro-3.2.7-1.fc11.src.rpm
Description: Provides the word list/dictionaries for the following: Romanian

--

I basically copied a lot of this from the french one: http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/aspell-fr/F-11/aspell-fr.spec?view=co

Modified a bit for extra files and different source.

This is (sort of) my first package so I would please like a sponsor!
I've got another package awaiting review/sponsorship here: #519282

Thank you!
Comment 1 Garrett Holmstrom 2010-01-08 17:41:48 EST
I am not a sponsor (or even a packager yet), however here are some informal comments based on
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines

rpmlint reports:
aspell-ro.src:26: W: configure-without-libdir-spec

- This one's OK because it isn't an autoconf-based configure.

aspell-ro.x86_64: E: no-binary
aspell-ro.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib

- As far as I know these are OK simply because it's an aspell dictionary package.

aspell-ro-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package

- I don't think you need a debuginfo package for aspell dictionaries.  If you add the line "%define debug_package %{nil}" to your spec file it won't try to build one.
Comment 2 manuel wolfshant 2010-07-16 02:30:36 EDT
Ionut, please update the specfile for the most current upstream version of the dictionaries and I'll do the review.
Since there are 2 dictionaries upstream, I suggest to pack them both (http://sourceforge.net/projects/rospell/files/Romanian%20dictionaries/dict-3.3.4/ro_RO-classic.3.3.4.zip/download and http://sourceforge.net/projects/rospell/files/Romanian%20dictionaries/dict-3.3.4/ro_RO.3.3.4.zip/download) and create 2 packages, aspell-ro and aspell-ro-classic.
Comment 3 manuel wolfshant 2010-07-16 02:34:04 EDT
Ionut, please add  "%define debug_package %{nil}" to your spec file, update it to include the most recent rospell dictionaries ( I suggest to include both aspell5-ro-3.3.4-classic.tar.bz2 and dict-3.3.4/aspell5-ro-3.3.4.tar.bz2 and to create 2 packages, one for each dictionary) and I'll do the review.
Comment 4 manuel wolfshant 2010-12-10 21:06:24 EST
I am giving up the revue due to lack of response from the submitter and lack of time from myself
Comment 5 Jason Tibbitts 2010-12-13 09:07:12 EST
If the submitter's not responding, what is the point in keeping the ticket open at all?  It doesn't appear that the submitter has ever responded, so I'm just going to close this.

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