[Bug 210758] Review Request: aspell-fa - Persian dictionaries for Aspell

[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: aspell-fa - Persian dictionaries for Aspell


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210758





------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net  2007-01-08 08:27 EST -------
Just some comments and hints:

* Also run rpmlint on the built rpms:

$ rpmlint ~/tmp/rpm/RPMS/aspell6-fa-0.10-0.i386.rpm 
W: aspell6-fa incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.10 0.10-0
E: aspell6-fa no-binary
E: aspell6-fa only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
W: aspell6-fa no-documentation

At least the two "W"arnings are helpful. The "E"errors can be ignored
with this package.

* Why is the package called "aspell6-fa" when all other aspell language
packages are called "aspell-*"?

* The defined %lang macro is not used in "Source0" everywhere.

* Creating a macro for the Aspell "0.60" version is highly recommended.

* Summary says "Farsi" only, description says "Persian" only. For
consistency and better results when searching package summaries,
I would use the name "Farsi" also in the description.

* Licence file COPYING is not included as %doc.

* Don't include the aspell home directory, because it belongs into
the aspell mother package already, and you require that package.

$ rpmls -p aspell6-fa-0.10-0.i386.rpm |grep ^d
drwxr-xr-x  /usr/lib/aspell-0.60

Only include the files below that directory with this entry in the
%files section:

%{_libdir}/aspell-0.60/*

* In your spec %changelog, specify the package version as full
version-release, not just its version. Packages usually start with
release 1, not 0.

-- 
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.