[Bug 750013] Review Request: clucene09 - A C++ port of Lucene

[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=750013

--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla <limb at jcomserv.net> 2011-11-04 08:37:08 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > clucene09-core.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8
> > /usr/share/doc/clucene09-core-0.9.21b/README
> > The character encoding of this file is not UTF-8.  Consider converting it in
> > the specfile's %prep section for example using iconv(1).
> > 
> > clucene09-core.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
> > /usr/share/doc/clucene09-core-0.9.21b/LGPL.license
> > This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or
> > modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed
> > correctly in some circumstances.
> 
> Sorry. I will correct those.
> 
> > clucene09-core.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> > /usr/share/doc/clucene09-core-0.9.21b/LGPL.license
> > The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or
> > misspelled.  Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file,
> > possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.
> 
> As mentioned in comment #1, this is an older version of the package just for
> compatibility reasons. Newer upstream versions should have a proper address.
> AFAIK this is not a blocker.
> 

Agreed.

> > clucene09-core-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
> > There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share.
> > 
> > Either correct this or comment on the rational for this placement in the spec.
> 
> Will be "clucene-config.h is arch/platform specific and must be installed in 
> %{_libdir}" enough clarification? See also bug #381481 for some more details,
> please.
>

Looks reasonable, include that comment and reference that BZ.

> > clucene09-core-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> > The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
> > documentation files.
> 
> IIRC this is no must and there is nothing really useful I could include.
> 

That being the case, that's fine.

> 
> Would you like an updated package/spec file because of point 1 and 3?

Yes, please.

-- 
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.