[Bug 228478] Review Request: hunspell-he - Hebrew hunspell dictionaries
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Feb 13 15:56:20 UTC 2007
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: hunspell-he - Hebrew hunspell dictionaries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228478
wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779
nThis| |
Flag| |fedora-review+
------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-13 10:56 EST -------
GOOD
- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream , sha1sum
3214278f18109a350cdd765b8c43b1f6a8163e20 he_IL.zip
- the package builds in mock for devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is
consistent with the fact that basically it includes only 3 text files)
- the license GPL stated in the tag is the same as the web site says; upstream
does not really include the license but just a notice claiming that the
dictionary is licensed as GPL
- there are only 2 files (word lists) + a short doc with instructions and
license clearance, so no need for -doc and no .la, .pc, static files
- no missing BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other
files/dirs
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- rpmlint output is silent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs as the only doc is a 10 lines text file
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file
APPROVED
SHOULD: upstream should be requested to include the license in the archive
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list