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