[Bug 227210] Review Request: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227210


kevin at tummy.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |kevin at tummy.com
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163778
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com  2007-02-13 14:46 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?



-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.