Bug 583058

Rpmlint: ok (spelling warnings)
Package and SPEC name: ok
License: ok
Upstream source code: ok (3ec14214f30cc86d10c3cab2d062ff3e  grantlee-v0.1.0.tar.gz)
Package builds: ok, see scratch build + tested locally
ldconfig: ok
BuildRequires: ok
Devel split: ok
No libtools archives: ok

Group should be "System Environment/Libraries".
I see doxygen and documentation commented out - what's the problem there? I think it should be shipped together.

Spec URL: http://thomasj.fedorapeople.org/reviews/grantlee.spec
SRPM URL: http://thomasj.fedorapeople.org/reviews/grantlee-0.1.1-1.fc12.src.rpm

- fixed Group
- grantlee-0.1.1

You said in IRC you wanted to test the doxygen part out, some progress?

Rpmlint are still some strange spelling warnings, else clean.

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2175805

Looking on it right now.

For spelling error s/themeing/theming.

Created attachment 413136 [details]
Adds apidocs

I'm not sure this patch is correct - location for apidocs?

Correct location for apidocs has been discussed on KDE SIG meeting, decision postponed to next meeting.

%{_docdir}/HTML/en/grantlee-apidocs still seems a bit strange, maybe %{_docdir}/HTML/grantlee-apidocs/en is more appropriate if we consider the fedora-release-notes package.

ls /usr/share/doc/HTML/fedora-release-notes/

 cs-CZ  es-ES  index.html  nl-NL  pt-PT  uk-UA
 en-US  fr-FR  it-IT       pl-PL  sv-SE  zh-CN

The installation path and subpackage name for html documentation is really a mess in fedora and need further consideration.

The guideline only has one line about this - if there's a lot of documentation, consider putting it into a subpackage.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Documentation

Actually, we now have several subpackage name for html documention.
E.g
-doc
-docs
-devel-doc
-devel-docs
-apidocs
-manual


We also have several installation path for those html files(normally built by docbook or doxygen).

%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}
%{_docdir}/%{name}-[subpackagename]-%{version}
%{_docdir}/%{name}
%{_docdir}/HTML/%{name}
%{_docdir}/HTML/[locale]/%{name}
%{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/%{name}

In java package guideline,we have
%{_datadir}/javadoc/%{name}-%{version} for -javadoc subpackage
%{_docdir}/%{name}-[subpackagename]-%{version} for -manual subpackage


I think add a fixed installation path for html apidocs or enduser manuals like man or info will benefit all of us a lot .

For KDE libraries we agreed on /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/%{name}-apidocs as kdelibs and kdepimlibs already uses this location and these two are most important for us.

(In reply to comment #6)
> %{_docdir}/HTML/en/grantlee-apidocs still seems a bit strange, maybe
> %{_docdir}/HTML/grantlee-apidocs/en is more appropriate if we consider the
> fedora-release-notes package.
> 
> ls /usr/share/doc/HTML/fedora-release-notes/
> 
>  cs-CZ  es-ES  index.html  nl-NL  pt-PT  uk-UA
>  en-US  fr-FR  it-IT       pl-PL  sv-SE  zh-CN
> 
> The installation path and subpackage name for html documentation is really a
> mess in fedora and need further consideration.
> 
> The guideline only has one line about this - if there's a lot of documentation,
> consider putting it into a subpackage.
> 
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Documentation
> 
> Actually, we now have several subpackage name for html documention.
> E.g
> -doc
> -docs
> -devel-doc
> -devel-docs
> -apidocs
> -manual
> 
> 
> We also have several installation path for those html files(normally built by
> docbook or doxygen).
> 
> %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}
> %{_docdir}/%{name}-[subpackagename]-%{version}
> %{_docdir}/%{name}
> %{_docdir}/HTML/%{name}
> %{_docdir}/HTML/[locale]/%{name}
> %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/%{name}
> 
> In java package guideline,we have
> %{_datadir}/javadoc/%{name}-%{version} for -javadoc subpackage
> %{_docdir}/%{name}-[subpackagename]-%{version} for -manual subpackage
> 
> 
> I think add a fixed installation path for html apidocs or enduser manuals like
> man or info will benefit all of us a lot .    

Indeed it's a mess, so we are trying to fix it at least on our KDE side. But sistribution wide solution would be really very nice.

(In reply to comment #7)
> For KDE libraries we agreed on /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/%{name}-apidocs as
> kdelibs and kdepimlibs already uses this location and these two are most
> important for us.    


Can KDE-SIG talk with fedora-release-notes group?

I installed F13 KDE spin, and found a bit inconsistence of using /usr/share/doc/HTML between kde-filesystem and fedora-release-notes, both packages are the default components of KDE spin. 

As I said before, fedora-release-notes installs their files to /usr/share/doc/HTML/fedora-release-notes/, it contains an index.html and some diretories with different locale names, which conflicts with the using of /usr/share/doc/HTML in kde-filesystem.

Note:

Currently, in fedora repo kde-filesystem and fedora-release-notes own /usr/share/doc/HTML.

/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/%{name}-apidocs is the search PATH of kdedevelop.

(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > For KDE libraries we agreed on /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/%{name}-apidocs as
> > kdelibs and kdepimlibs already uses this location and these two are most
> > important for us.    
> 
> 
> Can KDE-SIG talk with fedora-release-notes group?
> 
> I installed F13 KDE spin, and found a bit inconsistence of using
> /usr/share/doc/HTML between kde-filesystem and fedora-release-notes, both
> packages are the default components of KDE spin. 
> 
> As I said before, fedora-release-notes installs their files to
> /usr/share/doc/HTML/fedora-release-notes/, it contains an index.html and some
> diretories with different locale names, which conflicts with the using of
> /usr/share/doc/HTML in kde-filesystem.
> 
> Note:
> 
> Currently, in fedora repo kde-filesystem and fedora-release-notes own
> /usr/share/doc/HTML.
> 
> /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/%{name}-apidocs is the search PATH of kdedevelop.    

It's default KDE upstream installation schema...

Thomas, seems like we still don't have proper solution for apidocs - but we need Grantlee. I'm not going to block this review more - for now, not shipping apidocs would be best solution (just set apidocs to 0) and add comment somewhere in SPEC file.

APPROVED

Disabled apidocs until we agree on a standard path.

Spec URL: http://thomasj.fedorapeople.org/reviews/grantlee.spec
SRPM URL: http://thomasj.fedorapeople.org/reviews/grantlee-0.1.0-3.fc12.src.rpm

Thanks for the review Jaroslav.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: grantlee
Short Description: Qt string template engine based on the Django template system
Owners: thomasj
Branches: F-12 F-13
InitialCC: than

CVS Done

grantlee-0.1.1-3.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/grantlee-0.1.1-3.fc13

grantlee-0.1.1-3.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/grantlee-0.1.1-3.fc12

grantlee-0.1.1-3.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update grantlee'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/grantlee-0.1.1-3.fc13

grantlee-0.1.1-3.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update grantlee'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/grantlee-0.1.1-3.fc12

grantlee-0.1.1-3.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

grantlee-0.1.1-3.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.