Bug 698953 - Review Request: aspell-pt_BR - Brazilian Portuguese dictionaries for Aspell
Summary: Review Request: aspell-pt_BR - Brazilian 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 12:21 UTC by Ivana Varekova
Modified: 2011-04-29 14:56 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2011-04-29 08:47:42 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
jsafrane: fedora-review+
dennis: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Ivana Varekova 2011-04-22 12:21:25 UTC
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/varekova/aspell-pt_BR.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/varekova/aspell-pt_BR-20090702-1.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 08:17:01 UTC
rpmlint output:
aspell-pt_BR.src:27: W: configure-without-libdir-spec

It has custom ./configure script, not autoconf.

aspell-pt_BR.x86_64: E: no-binary
aspell-pt_BR.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).

I approve the package.

Comment 2 Ivana Varekova 2011-04-26 09:47:36 UTC
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: aspell-pt_BR
Short Description: Brazilian Portuguese dictionaries for Aspell
Owners: varekova
Branches: 
InitialCC:

Comment 3 William Lima 2011-04-26 13:30:18 UTC
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 Dennis Gilmore 2011-04-26 16:31:58 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 5 William Lima 2011-04-26 16:46:43 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

Looking at spec:

Obsoletes: aspell-pt <= 50:0.50
Provides: aspell-pt = %{epoch}:%{version}

is it right? since it's a pt-br package.

Comment 6 Ivana Varekova 2011-04-29 08:47:42 UTC
Thanks, BuildRoot tag and the clean part.


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