[Bug 228493] Review Request: hunspell-pl - Polish hunspell dictionaries

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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-pl - Polish hunspell dictionaries


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228493


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  2007-02-14 04:43 EST -------
%Source is no longer valid. The very same file is available as
http://www.kurnik.pl/dictionary/alt-myspell-pl.tar.bz2 but a newer version has
been released as http://www.kurnik.pl/dictionary/alt-myspell-pl-20070214.tar.bz2
Please consider updating %{upstreamid} and %Source before importing

GOOD

- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines 
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream , sha1sum 
7fa4e8a72290c53dedb1eee1f0a144a4ce77a27e  alt-myspell-pl.tar.bz2 (upstream)
7fa4e8a72290c53dedb1eee1f0a144a4ce77a27e  alt-myspell-pl-20060823.tar.bz2 (included)
- 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 one of the four (!) specified in the
archive bundle; the three others are LGPL, MPL (Mozilla Public License) and
Creative Commons ShareAlike v1; I am not sure at the moment which one should be
picked, but I guess GPL is a safe bet. None of the four licenses is included in
the archive, so the rpm does not include them either. Please also see my comment
below.
- 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
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file 

APPROVED

Caolan, please consider updating to latest version before importing. And maybe
you can persuade upstream to include the license files in the archive...

Comment: if anyone has objections against using GPL for the license tag, please
do explain your rationale, I am eager to learn. The wiki says just 
    "Alternately, if code is dual licensed, and one of the licenses meets the
open source license criteria, that code can be included in Fedora under the open
source license."
which does not cover the case when several OSI approved licenses are available.
And unfortunately at the moment there is no one on #fedora-extras with proper
knowledge in this area.
I am approving the package anyway because none of the licenses is a blocker and
if needed the tag can be modified later.


-- 
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.