https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021199
Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael(a)gmx.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael(a)gmx.net> ---
Amazing that Aspell still has dependencies (repoquery --whatrequires
aspell|grep -v ^aspell).
[...]
No older/retired package or stalled review request with the same name could be
located.
No other package includes conflicting files:
# repoquery --whatprovides /usr/lib64/aspell-0.60/fi*
#
$ rpmls -p aspell-fi-0.7-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm
-rw-r--r-- /usr/lib64/aspell-0.60/fi.dat
-rw-r--r-- /usr/lib64/aspell-0.60/fi.multi
-rw-r--r-- /usr/lib64/aspell-0.60/fi.rws
-rw-r--r-- /usr/lib64/aspell-0.60/fi_affix.dat
-rw-r--r-- /usr/lib64/aspell-0.60/finnish.alias
drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/doc/aspell-fi
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/aspell-fi/COPYING
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/aspell-fi/Copyright
The packaging style (e.g. arch-specific, deps, -debuginfo disabled) matches the
other aspell-* packages.
The author has created an own web page for this package:
http://ispell-fi.sourceforge.net
File doc/README says it's an ASCII-fied copy of that page. That file could be
included. WDYT?
aspell-fi.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/aspell-fi/COPYING
->
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address
With the last release being from 2000-2004, probably not much will happen
related to that.
License: GPLv2
The README points at file "Copyright" for the "exact terms", and that
one
contains the "or (at your option) any later version" clause. That would be
"GPLv2+". However:
Considering that the GPLv3 has been released later than 2004, and the web page
doesn't contain the "or later version" clause, the file Copyright is likely
just a cut'n'paste error. aspell-cs for example gets it right and has dropped
the "later version" clause.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#.22or_later_...
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Clar...
Not a big issue, just need to point that out in the review, since there are
licensing clarification guidelines. A comment in the spec file above the
License tag would be good.
./configure
For clarify:
# Custom configure script, %configure cannot and need not be used.
./configure
So, no issues that need another build for review. About the extra comments and
the URL, that's up to you and may be touched before/after importing the package
into dist git.
I'll contact you privately about packager account sponsorship.
APPROVED
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.