Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: stardict-dictionaries-lt - Lithuanian dictionaries for StarDict
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781766
Summary: Review Request: stardict-dictionaries-lt - Lithuanian dictionaries for StarDict Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: aurisc4@gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: ---
Spec URL: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/File:Stardict-dictionaries-lt.spec SRPM URL: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/File:Stardict-dictionaries-lt-3.0.2-1.fc16.sr... Description: Lithuanian dictionaries for StarDict. Currently includes en-lit and lit-en dictionaries from FreeDict. I'm not yet a maintainer of Fedora package, so I'm looking for a sponsor.
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=781766
Aurimas Černius aurisc4@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781766
Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tcallawa@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |tcallawa@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com --- Why is this at version 3.0.2? There isn't very much to this package, but the upstream versioning seems to be at 0.7.
A few notes:
* The "%stardict_dic_dir" should be a %global, instead of a %define.
* I strongly recommend that you get in the habit of using the "%{foo}" syntax, instead of the "%foo" syntax, as that more clearly indicates macros in use, especially in combination with other strings.
* Assuming that 0.7 is the actual version here, you should replace the "0.7" string in the Source0 and Source1 definitions with %{version}.
* When I examined the upstream source tarballs, I noticed that they were GPL+, not LGPL. You should be sure to correct the License tag. I was going to say that you should try to build these dictionaries fromn the upstream source files, but I can't figure out how to actually do that, and it does not seem as if any of the other stardict dictionaries do it either.
==== Please show me an updated spec file which incorporates the changes I mention above, and I will finish this review.
This is a very simple package, so I'm somewhat hesitant to sponsor you on just this package. Do you have any other packages for review that I can look at?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781766
Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com --- Oh, also, the naming convention for stardict dictionary packages in Fedora is "stardict-dic-$LANG", so please rename this package to stardict-dic-lt.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781766
--- Comment #3 from Aurimas Černius aurisc4@gmail.com --- I've uploaded new spec and SRPM: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/File:Stardict-dic-lt.spec https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/File:Stardict-dic-lt-0.7-1.fc17.src.rpm
There's one more package I've proposed: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=733925
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781766
Miroslav Suchý msuchy@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |msuchy@redhat.com Flags| |needinfo?
--- Comment #4 from Miroslav Suchý msuchy@redhat.com --- Ping? Any progress here? Aurimas: are you still interrested in this package? Tom: can you finish this review or reassign it back to nobody?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781766
Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|tcallawa@redhat.com |nobody@fedoraproject.org Flags|needinfo? |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781766
--- Comment #5 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) bugs.michael@gmx.net --- Since bug 733925 comment 7 (2012-12-16 16:09:32 EST)
| I'm afraid I don't have enough time for this, | so I think I better spend my time contributing where I do now.
I think (almost) everybody understood that as applying also to this package review request.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781766
Miroslav Suchý msuchy@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed| |2015-10-20 16:12:49
--- Comment #6 from Miroslav Suchý msuchy@redhat.com --- OK. Closing.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org