Output from rpmlint:

srpm
W: gnome-doc-utils buildprereq-use libxml2-devel >= 2.6.12
W: gnome-doc-utils buildprereq-use libxslt-devel >= 1.1.8

rpm
E: gnome-doc-utils explicit-lib-dependency libxml2-python
W: gnome-doc-utils devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/pkgconfig/xml2po.pc
W: gnome-doc-utils devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/pkgconfig/gnome-doc-utils.pc

I've fixed up Requires and BuildRequires a bit.


E: gnome-doc-utils explicit-lib-dependency libxml2-python

This sounds like rpmlint is smoking something...


W: gnome-doc-utils devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/pkgconfig/xml2po.pc
W: gnome-doc-utils devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/pkgconfig/gnome-doc-utils.pc

These are just rpmlint not knowing that gnome-doc-utils is
a devel package.

Thanks.  I agree those can certainly be waived.

About the license field, would it be better to list it as GPL/LGPL?
I am not sure what is the best way to designate that it is a mixture
of GPL and LGPL scripts?

Anyway COPYING, COPYING.GPL and COPYING.LGPL must be included in %doc.

% rpmlint gnome-doc-utils-0.12.0-1.fc8.noarch.rpm
gnome-doc-utils.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libxml2-python
gnome-doc-utils.noarch: W: invalid-license GFDL+

According to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing
the short name is GFDL.

Here is my review:

Good:
+ meets packaging and naming guidelines
+ project is GPL
+ spec file is clearly written
+ source is pristine
5934c08d12407d8233416343cd73df24  gnome-doc-utils-0.12.0.tar.bz2
+ lists buildrequires
+ file ownership looks good (except yelp problem mentioned also below)

Needs attention:
- rpmlint output
gnome-doc-utils.src: W: invalid-license GFDL+
gnome-doc-utils.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libxml2-python
gnome-doc-utils.noarch: W: invalid-license GFDL+
gnome-doc-utils-stylesheets.noarch: W: no-documentation
gnome-doc-utils-stylesheets.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/pkgconfig/gnome-doc-utils.pc
gnome-doc-utils-stylesheets.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/pkgconfig/xml2po.pc
- /usr/share/gnome/help ownership:
Dunno if it would make sense have a different package (like filesystem) to
own this dir rather than yelp if it is problematic to require yelp?

If GFDL is mentioned as an additional license for the .xml files then I think
LGPL+ should also be mentioned for the .xsl files.
The GFDL license is not included though, so since it is embedded I am
not sure if it is strictly necessary to mention GFDL in the License field.

Otherwise the package looks good to me.

ping

Dropping review for lack of response.

Can we drop this package from fedora if nobody willing to maintain this or mark
this as orphaned?

I want to maintain this package, If there are no objections?

(In reply to comment #5)
> gnome-doc-utils.src: W: invalid-license GFDL+

Changed to GFDL.

> gnome-doc-utils-stylesheets.noarch: W: no-documentation

Fixed some time ago.

> gnome-doc-utils.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libxml2-python
> gnome-doc-utils-stylesheets.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
> /usr/share/pkgconfig/gnome-doc-utils.pc
> gnome-doc-utils-stylesheets.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
> /usr/share/pkgconfig/xml2po.pc

Invalid.  See comment #2.

> - /usr/share/gnome/help ownership:
> Dunno if it would make sense have a different package (like filesystem) to
> own this dir rather than yelp if it is problematic to require yelp?

Please reopen bug #205799 if this is still an issue.

> If GFDL is mentioned as an additional license for the .xml files then I think
> LGPL+ should also be mentioned for the .xsl files.

Added LGPLv2+.

License changes applied to gnome-doc-utils-0.12.1-2.fc9.

Is this review still "(stalled)" ?

(In reply to comment #11)
> Is this review still "(stalled)" ?

Yes - feel free to continue it.

Thanks for the update in comment 10.

Based on this I think the package is ok now.

APPROVED