Spec URL: http://rishi.fedorapeople.org/redet-doc.spec SRPM URL: http://rishi.fedorapeople.org/redet-doc-8.23-1.fc8.src.rpm Description: Documentation for the Redet tool provided in HTML format.
Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=257507 I inherited this package and since there has been a new upstream release since it was last updated, I would like to pass this through a review.
There is no explicit license for the manual (as far as I can tell), so I guess that GPLv2 like for redet is the best choice for the license? I would suggest dropping the %{?dist} since this is not dist specific. I would also suggest dropping the dependency on redet. One may want to browse the documentation without having redet installed. You could add a conflict for older redet versions, but I don't think it is worth it.
(In reply to comment #2) > There is no explicit license for the manual (as far as I can > tell), so I guess that GPLv2 like for redet is the best choice > for the license? Upstream re-released the 8.23 tarball. Redet is now GPLv3, and upstream thinks that the manual should be GPLv3 as well. > I would also suggest dropping the dependency on redet. One > may want to browse the documentation without having redet > installed. Most -doc packages (python-docs, bouml-doc) have the parent packages as a dependency.
(In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > > There is no explicit license for the manual (as far as I can > > tell), so I guess that GPLv2 like for redet is the best choice > > for the license? > > Upstream re-released the 8.23 tarball. Redet is now GPLv3, and upstream thinks > that the manual should be GPLv3 as well. Indeed I have seen that in the redet review. It is a bit confusing since in the doc, unless I am wrong it is referred to the GPLv2, but it is indeed better to mark it as GPLv3 like redet. > > I would also suggest dropping the dependency on redet. One > > may want to browse the documentation without having redet > > installed. > > Most -doc packages (python-docs, bouml-doc) have the parent packages as a > dependency. But is it really right? Wouldn't it be better to be able to browse the documentation without actually installing the program? Having other packages do one thing doesn't mean it is the best choice. I personally avoid having doc packages depend on the main package in my packages (for example libdap-doc) and I advise against this in reviews. Now if you prefer to depend on the main package, I'm fine with it, it was just a suggestion. In any case I verified that it matches upstream, so it is APPROVED Still, please consider dropping %{?dist}, it seems to me that it is especially unndeeded or even harmful in that case -- but I won't make that a blocker either.
(In reply to comment #4) > But is it really right? Wouldn't it be better to be able to > browse the documentation without actually installing the program? > Having other packages do one thing doesn't mean it is the best > choice. Alright, I will remove the dependency. > Still, please consider dropping %{?dist}, it seems to me that it > is especially unndeeded or even harmful in that case -- but I won't > make that a blocker either. Alright. I am just curious as to why it might be harmful.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: redet-doc Short Description: Documentation for the Redet tool Owners: rishi Branches: F-7 F-8 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: no
(In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > Still, please consider dropping %{?dist}, it seems to me that it > > is especially unndeeded or even harmful in that case -- but I won't > > make that a blocker either. > > Alright. I am just curious as to why it might be harmful. It leads to different package names for different dist and may trigger unneeded update between releases. Also depending on how the buildsystem is set up it may avoid redundancy.
Spec: http://rishi.fedorapeople.org/redet-doc.spec SRPM: http://rishi.fedorapeople.org/redet-doc-8.23-2.src.rpm - Removed dist tag. - Removed dependency on redet.
cvs appears up to date. You are the owner in those branches. Please feel free to reset the flag if you need anything further. Also, as with redet, would you consider maintaining the EPEL branches as well?