Bug 698952 - Review Request: aspell-pt_PT - European Portuguese dictionaries for Aspell
Summary: Review Request: aspell-pt_PT - European Portuguese dictionaries for Aspell
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jan Safranek
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 674634
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2011-04-22 12:16 UTC by Ivana Varekova
Modified: 2011-04-29 14:55 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2011-04-28 12:49:30 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
jsafrane: fedora-review+
dennis: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Ivana Varekova 2011-04-22 12:16:41 UTC
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/varekova/aspell-pt_PT.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/varekova/aspell-pt_PT-20070510-1.fc13.src.rpm

The upstream of Portuguese dictionary split the dictionary to two parts this bug is for the European Portuguese part.

Comment 1 Jan Safranek 2011-04-26 08:21:24 UTC
rpmlint output:
aspell-pt_TP.src:27: W: configure-without-libdir-spec

It has custom ./configure script, not autoconf.

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

Both are caused by aspell design, it's data files are architecture dependent and these reports seem to be common to all aspell language packages.

All MUST/SHOULD package review items are ok, .spec file looks sane (apart from Epoch:50, which is another aspell oddity).  %description should end with dot, not with comma, so please fix it before pushing to git. I don't want to stop review just because of this cosmetic stuff.

So I approve the package.

Comment 2 Ivana Varekova 2011-04-26 09:47:08 UTC
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: aspell-pt_PT
Short Description: European Portuguese dictionaries for Aspell
Owners: varekova
Branches: 
InitialCC:

Comment 3 William Lima 2011-04-26 13:32:21 UTC
Same here...

Next time, please fix your Review Summary.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Create_Your_Review_Request

You also made a SCM Request with no branches.

Comment 4 Jason Tibbitts 2011-04-26 16:16:53 UTC
An SCM request without branches is perfectly valid (as the devel branch is created implicitly).  However, we won't process requests where the ticket summary is not in the proper format (as we use that as a guard against creating the wrong package name due to typos).

So, please fix the summary and I'll process the SCM request.

Comment 5 Dennis Gilmore 2011-04-26 16:26:02 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).
no branchs is valid you get devel only

Comment 6 William Lima 2011-04-26 16:44:48 UTC
You can also remove BuildRoot tag [1] and %clean section [2].

[1] - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
[2] - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean

Comment 7 Ivana Varekova 2011-04-28 12:49:30 UTC
Thanks, fixed the dot after the description, removed BuildRoot tag and clean part.


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