Bug 1010727 (qt5-qtdoc)
| Summary: | Review Request: qt5-qtdoc - Main Qt5 Reference Documentation | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Rex Dieter <rdieter> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | kevin, lkundrak, notting, ozgurmurath |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | lkundrak:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | qt5-qtdoc-5.1.1-2.fc20 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2013-10-19 09:14:10 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 928937 | ||
|
Description
Rex Dieter
2013-09-22 20:41:12 UTC
* Package is correctly named * Correct version packaged * License correct and packaged * Source file untouched * RPM file clean and legible * Requires sane * Provides sane - Filelist mostly fine, see notes below * Builds fine in mock * RPMLint happy 0.) The package should not have %doc-only files. I'm pretty sure there's even a guideline (that applies to -doc subpackages, but the point stays) -- I'll try to look it up in case this does not make sense to you :) However, the purpose of marking files %doc is nodocs RPM transaction that would allow for very minimal installation that still not affect functionality of the system. In such case a person would not install the -qtdoc package in the first place. I suggest not marking /usr/share/doc/qt5/qtdoc as %doc, and only leaving /usr/share/doc/qt5-qtdoc-5.1.1 to be marked as such. RPM automatically marks everything under /usr/share/doc as %doc, so just removing the %doc wouldn't help. > License: LGPLv2 with exceptions or GPLv3 with exceptions and GFDL
Shouldn't that actually say:
License: (LGPLv2 with exceptions or GPLv3 with exceptions) and GFDL
instead? At least in C and C++, && has higher priority than ||.
(This also affects at least qt5-qttranslations, probably also other Qt 5 packages.)
Kevin's right, the %doc marking is automatic, notice there is no '%doc' anywhere in qt5-qtdoc.spec As far as licensing goes, since it is doc-only, probably only GFDL applies here. I'll double-check... confirmed... Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qt5/qt5-qtdoc.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qt5/qt5-qtdoc-5.1.1-2.fc19.src.rpm %changelog * Mon Sep 30 2013 Rex Dieter <rdieter> 5.1.1-2 - License: GFDL Thank you. APPROVED New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: qt5-qtdoc Short Description: Main Qt5 Reference Documentation Owners: than rdieter jreznik kkofler ltinkl rnovacek Branches: el6 f18 f19 f20 InitialCC: Git done (by process-git-requests). qt5-qtdoc-5.1.1-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/qt5-qtdoc-5.1.1-2.fc20 qt5-qtdoc-5.1.1-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/qt5-qtdoc-5.1.1-2.fc19 qt5-qtdoc-5.1.1-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/qt5-qtdoc-5.1.1-2.fc18 qt5-qtdoc-5.1.1-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/qt5-qtdoc-5.1.1-2.el6 qt5-qtdoc-5.1.1-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. qt5-qtdoc-5.1.1-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. qt5-qtdoc-5.1.1-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. qt5-qtdoc-5.1.1-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. qt5-qtdoc-5.1.1-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. *** Bug 1009868 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** |