Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: mecab - Yet Another Part-of-Speech and Morphological Analyzer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229927
j.w.r.degoede(a)hhs.nl changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede(a)hhs.nl 2007-02-26 13:34 EST -------
(In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #6)
> looks fine, but what about all my other remarks?
Just I didn't look them...
Well, your suggestion seems preferable. However I am always annoyed
when I review packages
* main package requires some data
* and the data is provided by several package and only one is
required
and the views are different between the packages...
This new version looks much better and rpmlint likes it too :)
So here's the full review:
MUST:
=====
* rpmlint output is:
W: mecab-devel no-documentation
* Package and spec file named appropriately
* Packaged according to packaging guidelines
* License ok
* spec file is legible and in Am. English.
* Source matches upstream
* Compiles and builds on devel x86_64
* BR: ok
* No locales
* Shared libraries, ldconfig run as required
* Not relocatable
* Package owns / or requires all dirs
* No duplicate files & Permissions ok
* %clean & macro usage OK
* Contains code only
* %doc does not affect runtime, and isn't large enough to warrent a sub package
* -devel package as needed
* no .desktop file required
Approved by Hans de Goede, time to file a CVS branch request.
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.