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

Bug 227210

Summary: Review Request: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Bill Nottingham <notting>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Kevin Fenzi <kevin>
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: rvokal
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: Reopened
Target Release: ---Flags: j: fedora-review+
j: fedora-cvs+
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
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:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 163779    

Description Bill Nottingham 2007-02-03 16:37:57 UTC
Spec URL:
Description: docs from gnucash

I split these off from gnucash as suggested in bug 222388.

rpmlint seems clean, unless I botched it.

Comment 1 Kevin Fenzi 2007-02-13 19:46:38 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


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.


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?


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?

Comment 2 Bill Nottingham 2007-02-13 19:50:27 UTC
1. I'd agree - matching the upstream tarball is best.

2. Nothing relevant actually owns %{_datadir}/gnome/help. Sort of an impasse. :/

Comment 3 Bill Nottingham 2007-02-13 19:52:14 UTC
Bug 228561 filed re: yelp & %{_datadir}/gnome/help.

Comment 4 Bill Nottingham 2007-02-13 19:58:05 UTC
... and fixed. I suppose the yelp dep could move from gnucash proper to here.

Comment 5 Kevin Fenzi 2007-02-13 20:01:19 UTC
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... 

Comment 6 Bill Nottingham 2007-02-13 20:02:29 UTC
New spec/srpm uploaded.

Comment 7 Kevin Fenzi 2007-02-13 20:08:12 UTC
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?

Comment 8 Bill Nottingham 2007-02-13 20:19:45 UTC
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.

Comment 9 Kevin Fenzi 2007-02-13 20:32:26 UTC
I could review aqbanking probibly later tonight... 

Comment 10 Bill Nottingham 2007-03-19 19:31:03 UTC
This is built now.

Comment 11 Bill Nottingham 2007-06-09 01:15:24 UTC
Package Change Request
Package Name: gnucash-docs
New Branches: EL-4 EL-5

Comment 12 Jason Tibbitts 2007-06-09 03:58:14 UTC
CVS done.