[Bug 741824] Review Request: libpinyin - Library to deal with pinyin

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Sep 28 05:02:16 UTC 2011


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=741824

Parag AN(पराग) <panemade at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade at gmail.com> 2011-09-28 01:02:15 EDT ---
Review:
+ koji build for
f16->http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3384522
+ rpmlint output is
libpinyin-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libpinyin-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/include/libpinyin-0.3/pinyin_custom.h
libpinyin-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/include/libpinyin-0.3/novel_types.h
libpinyin-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/include/libpinyin-0.3/pinyin_base.h
libpinyin-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/include/libpinyin-0.3/pinyin.h
libpinyin-data.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings.

+ source verified with upstream as (sha1sum)
83e39b3b2b229970bbf6e3dcc43d0e8786f56aa8  libpinyin-0.2.99.1.tar.gz
83e39b3b2b229970bbf6e3dcc43d0e8786f56aa8  ../SOURCES/libpinyin-0.2.99.1.tar.gz

Suggestions:
1) Please ask the upstream to correct the FSF address as per reported in
rpmlint output.
2) You don't need to clean buildroot in %install. Please remove that line in
spec.
3) Good to use make command as
make %{?_smp_mflags}

4) Good to preserve timestamps with following install command
make install DESTDIR==$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL="install -p"

APPROVED.

-- 
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.


More information about the package-review mailing list