Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 227210
Summary: | Review Request: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Bill Nottingham <notting> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Kevin Fenzi <kevin> |
Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | rvokal |
Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened |
Target Release: | --- | Flags: | j:
fedora-review+
j: fedora-cvs+ |
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2007-06-09 03:58:14 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 163779 |
Description
Bill Nottingham
2007-02-03 16:37:57 UTC
Here's a review: See below - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines See below - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GFDL) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: ffc058efd0283a4b43ca31980c40db49 gnucash-docs-2.0.1.tar.bz2 ffc058efd0283a4b43ca31980c40db49 gnucash-docs-2.0.1.tar.bz2.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. See below - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version OK - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. It looks like the standard that was decided on for naming documentation subpackages is '-doc' not '-docs'... but then, this isn't really a subpackage, it's named gnucash-docs upstream and distributed as a seperate tar, so I think this is ok. Do you concur? See: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-5ece6e38e05f6127ec27ae5b4584a8ac0a112849 2. This package installs under %{_datadir}/gnome/help, but doesn't own that directory. Should it require some package that does own that directory? I don't see any obvious good choices however... any thoughts there? 1. I'd agree - matching the upstream tarball is best. 2. Nothing relevant actually owns %{_datadir}/gnome/help. Sort of an impasse. :/ Bug 228561 filed re: yelp & %{_datadir}/gnome/help. ... and fixed. I suppose the yelp dep could move from gnucash proper to here. Wow...that was quick. ;) Yes, this package should be the one that requires yelp... it doesn't currently. I don't think off hand gnucash will need to require yelp anymore either... New spec/srpm uploaded. Looks good to me. I see no further blockers, so this package is APPROVED. Don't forget to close this NEXTRELEASE once it's imported and built. In order to move gnucash, gnucash-docs into the extras cvs, we also need abqbanking, right? Or will they need to all wait for the main core merge? The whole stack is: gwenhywfar (bug 221947) -\ libofx (bug 221944) ------> aqbanking (bug 222522)-\ gnucash-docs (bug 227210) --------------------------> gnucash (bug 222388) g-wrap (bug 222347) -------------------------------/ Currently in APPROVED: gnucash, gnucash-docs, libofx, gwenhywfar So, I could move gnucash/gnucash-docs, albeit reverting the minor packaging changes that were there to work with the in-review aqbanking package. Or wait for aqbanking to finish review. I could review aqbanking probibly later tonight... This is built now. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: gnucash-docs New Branches: EL-4 EL-5 CVS done. |