Bug 227210 - Review Request: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash
Review Request: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Kevin Fenzi
Fedora Package Reviews List
: Reopened
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-ACCEPT
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-02-03 11:37 EST by Bill Nottingham
Modified: 2014-03-16 23:05 EDT (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2007-06-08 23:58:14 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
tibbs: fedora‑review+
tibbs: fedora‑cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Bill Nottingham 2007-02-03 11:37:57 EST
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/notting/review/gnucash-docs.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/notting/review/
Description: docs from gnucash

I split these off from gnucash as suggested in bug 222388.

rpmlint seems clean, unless I botched it.
Comment 1 Kevin Fenzi 2007-02-13 14:46:38 EST
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?

Comment 2 Bill Nottingham 2007-02-13 14:50:27 EST
1. I'd agree - matching the upstream tarball is best.

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

Comment 3 Bill Nottingham 2007-02-13 14:52:14 EST
Bug 228561 filed re: yelp & %{_datadir}/gnome/help.
Comment 4 Bill Nottingham 2007-02-13 14:58:05 EST
... and fixed. I suppose the yelp dep could move from gnucash proper to here.
Comment 5 Kevin Fenzi 2007-02-13 15:01:19 EST
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... 


Comment 6 Bill Nottingham 2007-02-13 15:02:29 EST
New spec/srpm uploaded.
Comment 7 Kevin Fenzi 2007-02-13 15:08:12 EST
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?
Comment 8 Bill Nottingham 2007-02-13 15:19:45 EST
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.

Comment 9 Kevin Fenzi 2007-02-13 15:32:26 EST
I could review aqbanking probibly later tonight... 
Comment 10 Bill Nottingham 2007-03-19 15:31:03 EDT
This is built now.
Comment 11 Bill Nottingham 2007-06-08 21:15:24 EDT
Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: gnucash-docs
New Branches: EL-4 EL-5
Comment 12 Jason Tibbitts 2007-06-08 23:58:14 EDT
CVS done.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.