https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1807365

Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |panemade@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1807365

Artur Iwicki fedora@svgames.pl changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora@svgames.pl

--- Comment #2 from Artur Iwicki fedora@svgames.pl ---

Source0: https://github.com/nuspell/nuspell/archive/v3.0.0.tar.gz

You can use %{version} as part of the URL so you don't have to edit it manually every time there's a new version.

BuildRequires: gcc BuildRequires: cmake BuildRequires: boost-locale

I'd recommend ordering these aplhabetically.

%description Nuspell is a free and open source spell checker library and \ command-line program designed for languages with rich morphology and \ complex word compounding. Nuspell is a pure C++ re-implementation of Hunspell.

Do not escape the newlines in description - this creates one, single, long line. Each line of the description should be no longer than 80 characters. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_summary_and_desc...

cmake . -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=1 -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release \ -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/usr -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug

1. Use %{_prefix} instead of writing "/usr" outright. 2. Why is CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE specified twice?

%files %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1.gz

Do not assume that man pages will be gzipped. Use a wildcard that can match both compressed and non-compressed pages. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1807365

Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com

--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Use a better name for your archive:

Source0: https://github.com/%%7Bname%7D/%%7Bname%7D/archive/v%%7Bversion%7D/%%7Bname%...

- Use the %cmake macro:

%cmake . -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=1 -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug \ -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=%{_prefix}

- make %{?_smp_mflags} → %make_build

- %ldconfig_scriptlets is not needed anymore

- In order to avoid unintentional soname bump, we recommend not globbing the major soname version, be more specific instead:

%{_libdir}/*.so.3*

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1807365

--- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - You must install the license files with %license in %files

%license COPYING COPYING.LESSER

- You should install the docs with %doc in %files:

%doc AUTHORS CHANGELOG.md README.md

Package Review ==============

Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed

===== MUST items =====

C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License (v3)", "Mozilla Public License 1.1 GNU General Public License (v2 or later) or GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v3 or later)", "Mozilla Public License GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1)", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License 1.1 GNU General Public License (v2 or later) or GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1)". 489 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/nuspell/review-nuspell/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint ------- Checking: nuspell-3.0.0-4.fc33.x86_64.rpm nuspell-devel-3.0.0-4.fc33.x86_64.rpm nuspell-debuginfo-3.0.0-4.fc33.x86_64.rpm nuspell-debugsource-3.0.0-4.fc33.x86_64.rpm nuspell-3.0.0-4.fc33.src.rpm 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1807365

Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+

--- Comment #8 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- LGTM, package approved.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1807365

Pander pander@users.sourceforge.net changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pander@users.sourceforge.ne | |t

--- Comment #10 from Pander pander@users.sourceforge.net --- *** Bug 1820723 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1807365

--- Comment #12 from Pander pander@users.sourceforge.net --- Please ignore point 4) in my previous message, that is good as it is.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1807365

--- Comment #14 from Pander pander@users.sourceforge.net --- Thanks for the changes. They were good, until we changed the description recently. Sorry for that. If you can, please change

Summary: C++ spelling checking library and command-line tool

Requires: has one tab character too many after it

%description Nuspell is a fast and safe spelling checker software program. It is designed for languages with rich morphology and complex word compounding. Nuspell is written in modern C++ and it supports Hunspell dictionaries.

%package devel Summary: Development tools for %{name}

(make sure there is no whitespace at the end of the line for Summary)

The latest release is here: https://github.com/nuspell/nuspell/releases/tag/v3.1.1

Please upgrade the spec file for this too. Thanks.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1807365

--- Comment #16 from Pander pander@users.sourceforge.net --- Meanwhile, version 3.1.2 has been released. Please upgrade FRP to use that version. Thanks.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1807365

vishal vijayraghavan vvijayra@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |vvijayra@redhat.com

--- Comment #18 from vishal vijayraghavan vvijayra@redhat.com --- Nuspell package updated[1] to latest release 4.2.0. This update is build currently for rawhide only, please review and suggest updates if any. Thanks :)

[1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nuspell/blob/master/f/nuspell.spec

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1807365

Mattia Verga mattia.verga@protonmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Status|POST |CLOSED Last Closed| |2022-01-20 20:13:29

--- Comment #20 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@protonmail.com --- Package is in current Fedora release, closing ticket.