Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476471 --- Comment #73 from Jens Petersen <petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-28 19:38:20 EDT --- I sort of missed these comments at the time. (In reply to comment #63) > "Another option is to look at a streamlined set of review items for > publican-created doc packages... We've never explicitly done this but in > practice, people know they don't have to check, for instance, shared > library guidelines when writing and reviewing a pure python module." > > Someone would first need to propose what the specific set of review items for > publican-created doc packages should be. The way to do this is to create a wiki > page under: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ I agree with this idea: it would be good to have an explicit Packaging Guideline for publican documentation. Basically it all rests on publican since it can generate srpm packages directly from SCM and should be capable of submitting packages directly to koji from svn (like it does for brew inside Red Hat), so in that sense this is nothing to review once publican's templates have been approved as good for Fedora. The general view seems to be that documentation writers and translators in particular should not have to do all the cvs jigs to get books built in the buildsystem so I think yes some special provisions are needed for publican publishing to Fedora. (Other options would include a special writer packager category say in FAS/koji or even a separate repo for documentation publishing (eg dist-f12-docs?).) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review