[Bug 228495] Review Request: hunspell-pt - Portuguese 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-pt - Portuguese hunspell dictionaries


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228495


wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163778
              nThis|                            |
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro  2007-02-14 05:44 EST -------
 There are two dictionaries included, for pt_PT and pt_BR; each one comes with a
Readme file (Leia-me.pdf). As they are not completely identical (for instance
ine of them clarifies the license, while the other does not), please consider
packaging them both
 
GOOD

- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines 
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream , sha1sum 
0f000c39d4879c5008efe51d34daea89a94da271  pt_BR-2700g.zip
5b6c2f9d6e45b185174e2950e2b1e3a9fa1b6dd4  pt_PT-2700C.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)
- MUSTFIX the license (GPL) stated in the tag is not the same as the web site
says. http://www.broffice.org.br/?q=docs claims "Creative Commons (padrão) - GNU
FDL - ODL" while one of the included readme files claims LGPL.
- the package includes just word lists + docs 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 

please fix the differences between the license tag and the ones from upstream
and I will approve the package. Please also try to persuade upstream to include
 the licenses in the archives.

-- 
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.