Why is this at version 3.0.2? There isn't very much to this package, but the upstream versioning seems to be at 0.7. A few notes: * The "%stardict_dic_dir" should be a %global, instead of a %define. * I strongly recommend that you get in the habit of using the "%{foo}" syntax, instead of the "%foo" syntax, as that more clearly indicates macros in use, especially in combination with other strings. * Assuming that 0.7 is the actual version here, you should replace the "0.7" string in the Source0 and Source1 definitions with %{version}. * When I examined the upstream source tarballs, I noticed that they were GPL+, not LGPL. You should be sure to correct the License tag. I was going to say that you should try to build these dictionaries fromn the upstream source files, but I can't figure out how to actually do that, and it does not seem as if any of the other stardict dictionaries do it either. ==== Please show me an updated spec file which incorporates the changes I mention above, and I will finish this review. This is a very simple package, so I'm somewhat hesitant to sponsor you on just this package. Do you have any other packages for review that I can look at?
Oh, also, the naming convention for stardict dictionary packages in Fedora is "stardict-dic-$LANG", so please rename this package to stardict-dic-lt.
I've uploaded new spec and SRPM: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/File:Stardict-dic-lt.spec https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/File:Stardict-dic-lt-0.7-1.fc17.src.rpm There's one more package I've proposed: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=733925
Ping? Any progress here? Aurimas: are you still interrested in this package? Tom: can you finish this review or reassign it back to nobody?
Since bug 733925 comment 7 (2012-12-16 16:09:32 EST) | I'm afraid I don't have enough time for this, | so I think I better spend my time contributing where I do now. I think (almost) everybody understood that as applying also to this package review request.
OK. Closing.