[Bug 514509] Review Request: pyhunspell - Python bindings for hunspell

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=514509


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2009-08-01 17:16:16 EDT ---
Builds fine;  rpmlint says:
  pyhunspell.x86_64: W: no-documentation
which is fine, since there isn't any.

I'm unsure of the name.  The upstream site calls itself "pyhunspell" but the
tarball and the module are called hunspell.  The guidelines only say "when in
doubt, use the name of the module that you type to import it in a script",
which would be "hunspell" (and to prepend "python-" if "py" isn't in the name).
 Not really sure what's correct here.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28python_modules.29

%description could use a period.

I note that the compiler flags all appear twice; I think setup.py build gets
them right without having them passed, but I'm not certain of it.

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:             
   ec1bfa633f937b67f6b2a7134ee2600aecf704a62042e2dc9f0eb4a2ec18c67d
   hunspell-0.1.tar.gz
? unsure of the package name.
* specfile is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.                                                              
* description is OK (could use a period).
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text not included upstream.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   hunspell.so()(64bit)
   pyhunspell = 0.1-1.fc12
   pyhunspell(x86-64) = 0.1-1.fc12
  =
   libhunspell-1.2.so.0()(64bit)
   libpython2.6.so.1.0()(64bit)
   python(abi) = 2.6

* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.