[Bug 181068] Review Request: html401-dtds - HTML 4.01 document type definitions

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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: html401-dtds - HTML 4.01 document type definitions


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181068


tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163778
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx  2006-06-19 20:25 EST -------
Unfortunately I know little about SGML and can't really evaluate this package in
that context or test it.  But I can evaluate it against the general set of
packaging guidelines and take Daniel's acceptance in comment 16 that it OK from
a SGML standpoint.  Hopefully that's sufficient.

The package builds fine; rpmlint only complains about the license, which is OK.
 It installs and uninstalls fine and the catalog in /etc/sgml is updated properly.

The only major issue I see is that there don't seem to be any dependencies on
/usr/bin/install-catalog or sgml-common for the scriptlets.  Unless I'm
misunderstanding something, this is a blocker.

Other comments:
perl(File::Spec) is part of base perl, so technically don't need to BR: it
although it certainly isn't a problem to do so.  (I know you know this; I only
add it for posterity.)

This isn't really code, but I can't imagine the "code not content" rule would
apply here.

Review:
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines (given the
parallel-installability argument I see the need to put the version in the name).
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.  License text not included upstream.
* source files match upstream:
   1ed76627ba80816079649f67023ec7ab  html40.tgz
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
O rpmlint is silent except for invalid license warning.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   html401-dtds = 4.01-19991224.1.fc6
  =
   /bin/sh
   sgml-common
* no shared libraries are present.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* %check is not present; test suite wouldn't make much sense.
X scriptlets present but don't seem to have appropriate dependencies.
O code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package (the links
go from the doc directory into /usr/share/sgml and not the other way around).
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.

-- 
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.

_______________________________________________
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]