Bug 199927

Summary:	Review Request: xorg-x11-docs
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Mike A. Harris <mharris>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	David Cantrell <dcantrell>
Status:	CLOSED RAWHIDE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	fedora-package-review, notting
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2006-07-25 02:01:57 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:	199925
Bug Blocks:	174738, 188268

Description Mike A. Harris 2006-07-24 12:24:13 UTC

Spec URL:
http://mharris.ca/fedora/core/xorg-x11-docs/xorg-x11-docs.spec

SRPM URL:
http://mharris.ca/fedora/core/xorg-x11-docs/xorg-x11-docs-1.2-1.src.rpm

Description: X.Org X11 protocol documentation and other technical documentation
used by developers.

This documentation was previously present in subpackages of monolithic XFree86
and X.Org as "XFree86-doc" and "xorg-x11-doc", but was missing from the Xorg
X11R7.0 release.  It was tarballed afterward, and made available for the
Xorg 7.1 release.  The package is 'noarch' now, which provides a huge
disk space savings on our internal servers and mirrors as an added bonus.

This package requires the new 'xorg-sgml-doctools' package, submitted
as bug #199925 in order to build.

Comment 1 Bill Nottingham 2006-07-24 14:11:05 UTC

Tech ack.

Comment 2 Jesse Keating 2006-07-24 14:51:30 UTC

- Obsoletes: XFree86-doc, xorg-x11-doc; Do we provide those in this package?

Other than that, the only rpmlint errors are ignorable.

Approving (if you address the above issue)

Bill?

Comment 3 Jesse Keating 2006-07-24 17:02:52 UTC

Added to dist-fc6.

Should this go into Comps somewhere?

Please close when built into rawhide.

Comment 4 Mike A. Harris 2006-07-25 00:17:26 UTC

(In reply to comment #2)
> - Obsoletes: XFree86-doc, xorg-x11-doc; Do we provide those in this package?

No, but nothing should depend on them either.  The packages didn't even
exist in FC5, so if anything depended on them we probably would have gotten
a bug report by now.  I can add Provides anyway though if you prefer, just
for completeness. ;)

 
> Other than that, the only rpmlint errors are ignorable.
> 
> Approving (if you address the above issue)

All the X packages have "License: MIT/X11", however technically speaking
different parts of X are under slightly different licenses.  Individual
source files are sometimes under a different license.  The majority of
all of the licences are the MIT licence, or very close clone of it, or
of the BSD no-ad-clause license.  If there's a generic text that should
be used instead of "MIT/X11" for quirks of this nature, I can change it
though.

Comment 5 Mike A. Harris 2006-07-25 00:26:32 UTC

Ok, I fixed the Groups field, and added the Provides suggested above,
checked into CVS now.

Comment 6 Mike A. Harris 2006-07-25 02:01:57 UTC

Built in rawhide.