Bug 227210

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?

1. I'd agree - matching the upstream tarball is best.

2. Nothing relevant actually owns %{_datadir}/gnome/help. Sort of an impasse. :/

Bug 228561 filed re: yelp & %{_datadir}/gnome/help.

... and fixed. I suppose the yelp dep could move from gnucash proper to here.

Wow...that was quick. ;) 

Yes, this package should be the one that requires yelp... it doesn't currently. 
I don't think off hand gnucash will need to require yelp anymore either... 

New spec/srpm uploaded.

Looks good to me. I see no further blockers, so this package is APPROVED. 

Don't forget to close this NEXTRELEASE once it's imported and built. 

In order to move gnucash, gnucash-docs into the extras cvs, we also need 
abqbanking, right? Or will they need to all wait for the main core merge?

The whole stack is:

gwenhywfar (bug 221947) -\
libofx (bug 221944) ------> aqbanking (bug 222522)-\
gnucash-docs (bug 227210) --------------------------> gnucash (bug 222388)
g-wrap (bug 222347) -------------------------------/

Currently in APPROVED: gnucash, gnucash-docs, libofx, gwenhywfar

So, I could move gnucash/gnucash-docs, albeit reverting the minor packaging
changes that were there to work with the in-review aqbanking package. Or wait
for aqbanking to finish review.

I could review aqbanking probibly later tonight... 

This is built now.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: gnucash-docs
New Branches: EL-4 EL-5

CVS done.