Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227210
Summary: Review Request: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: notting@redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/notting/review/gnucash-docs.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/notting/review/ Description: docs from gnucash
I split these off from gnucash as suggested in bug 222388.
rpmlint seems clean, unless I botched it.
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: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227210
kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |kevin@tummy.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2007-02-13 14:46 EST ------- 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-5ece6e38e0...
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?
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: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227210
------- Additional Comments From notting@redhat.com 2007-02-13 14:50 EST ------- 1. I'd agree - matching the upstream tarball is best.
2. Nothing relevant actually owns %{_datadir}/gnome/help. Sort of an impasse. :/
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: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227210
------- Additional Comments From notting@redhat.com 2007-02-13 14:52 EST ------- Bug 228561 filed re: yelp & %{_datadir}/gnome/help.
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: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227210
------- Additional Comments From notting@redhat.com 2007-02-13 14:58 EST ------- ... and fixed. I suppose the yelp dep could move from gnucash proper to here.
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: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227210
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2007-02-13 15:01 EST ------- 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...
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: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227210
------- Additional Comments From notting@redhat.com 2007-02-13 15:02 EST ------- New spec/srpm uploaded.
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: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227210
kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2007-02-13 15:08 EST ------- 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?
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: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227210
------- Additional Comments From notting@redhat.com 2007-02-13 15:19 EST ------- 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.
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: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227210
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2007-02-13 15:32 EST ------- I could review aqbanking probibly later tonight...
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: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227210
notting@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE
------- Additional Comments From notting@redhat.com 2007-03-19 15:31 EST ------- This is built now.
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: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227210
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium
notting@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Keywords| |Reopened Resolution|RAWHIDE | Flag| |fedora-cvs?
------- Additional Comments From notting@redhat.com 2007-06-08 21:15 EST ------- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: gnucash-docs New Branches: EL-4 EL-5
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: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227210
tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+, fedora-review+
------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2007-06-08 23:58 EST ------- CVS done.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org