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@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |kevin@xxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 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-5ece6e38e05f6127ec27ae5b4584a8ac0a112849 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? -- 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