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=617592 --- Comment #17 from Chen Lei <supercyper1@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-08-09 08:44:35 EDT --- (In reply to comment #16) > Sorry for having been a bit nit-picking. However, I think the package is more > consistent now. Since docs are usually added with %doc, the Fedora guidelines > define the namespace of the doc files to be %{name}. It doesn't matter where > upstream wants to put them. If the package provided only html docs and no qch > file, you would have to add them with %doc and they would therefore be placed > in %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}. A single additional doc variant (qch) should > not lead to a change of the namespace. But maybe you can ask the upstream > developer whether he might adapt the naming schemes of libaccounts-glib and > libaccounts-qt. I never mind of changing the place of docs, I just consider the locatation of docs is a very trivial issue before Fedora package guideline has new changes :) KDE-SIG seems want to talk docs issues again. > Here comes the formal review. The package looks fine and is ready now. > You should update the referenced location of the upstream SRPM, though. Release > 4 of the package is no longer available, but the tarball of release 5 equals > that of your package too. I'll add a permanent link to upstream SRPM before importing to git, the permanent link don't exist when I try to update this package to the latest upstream SRPM. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review