Spec URL: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/e16/e16-docs.spec SRPM URL: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/e16/e16-docs-0.16.8-0.1.0.02.fc8.src.rpm Description: This package contains documentation for Enlightenment, DR16.
#254056 is now resolved and we can continue, updated package (see #254056 for license): spec: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/e16/e16-docs.spec srpm: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/e16/e16-docs-0.16.8.0.1-1.fc8.src.rpm
I would be happy to review this. Look for a full review here in a few.
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (MIT with advertising) 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: 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 has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install 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 function as described. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version Issues: 1. As with all the e16 packages, you might ping upstream to relicence to a more friendly license. Has there been any response so far? 2. rpmlint says: e16-docs.noarch: W: invalid-license MIT with advertising e16-docs.src: W: invalid-license MIT with advertising 3. Is the only reason this package Requires e16 for the /usr/share/e16 directory? If so, perhaps move it to a /usr/share/e16-docs/ dir and remove the Requires? 4. This package ships with 2 fonts, can you just Require a needed font package for those? Or are those specific fonts needed? /usr/share/e16/E-docs/Vera.ttf /usr/share/e16/E-docs/VeraBd.ttf
> 1. As with all the e16 packages, you might ping upstream to relicence > to a more friendly license. Has there been any response so far? I talked to Kim, which maintains e16 now, was not directly against it, however there a lot of contributions to the now very old source code. Reaching consensus with everyone seems a bit off for such a old project. However it would make sense to change the license in - yet to be released - e17. It seems already to be changed to something like pure MIT: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2008-April/msg00020.html https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=441965 http://enlightenment.org/viewvc/e17/apps/e/COPYING?revision=1.3 http://enlightenment.org/viewvc/e17/apps/e/COPYING-PLAIN?revision=1.1 > 2. rpmlint says: > > e16-docs.noarch: W: invalid-license MIT with advertising > e16-docs.src: W: invalid-license MIT with advertising It's should be fine, ref. e16 and e16-themes was ok with this. > 3. Is the only reason this package Requires e16 for the /usr/share/e16 directory? > If so, perhaps move it to a /usr/share/e16-docs/ dir and remove the Requires? The real reason is that docs don't make much sense without e16 and that document viewer for e16 help files is in e16. > 4. This package ships with 2 fonts, can you just Require > a needed font package for those? Or are those specific fonts needed? > /usr/share/e16/E-docs/Vera.ttf > /usr/share/e16/E-docs/VeraBd.ttf They are available in bitstream-vera-fonts, will fix this.
New updated package: - fonts already in bitstream-vera-fonts, symlink - fix typo in summary spec: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/e16/e16-docs.spec srpm: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/e16/e16-docs-0.16.8.0.1-2.fc8.src.rpm
Sorry for the delay. All blockers seem fixed to me, so this package is APPROVED.
> Sorry for the delay. No problemo :-) >All blockers seem fixed to me, so this package is APPROVED. Thanks! New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: e16-docs Short Description: Documentation for Enlightenment, DR16 Owners: terjeros Branches: F-7 F-8 F-9 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes
cvs done.
built and bodhi pushed. Thanks for kind help!