Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 254057
Review Request: e16-docs - Dcumentation for Enlightenment, DR16
Last modified: 2008-05-01 16:45:56 EDT
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
This package contains documentation for Enlightenment, DR16.
#254056 is now resolved and we can continue, updated package (see #254056 for
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
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
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?
> 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:
> 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?
They are available in bitstream-vera-fonts, will fix this.
New updated package:
- fonts already in bitstream-vera-fonts, symlink
- fix typo in summary
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.
New Package CVS Request
Package Name: e16-docs
Short Description: Documentation for Enlightenment, DR16
Branches: F-7 F-8 F-9
Cvsextras Commits: yes
built and bodhi pushed.
Thanks for kind help!