[Bug 225816] Merge Review: gnome-doc-utils

[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: Merge Review: gnome-doc-utils


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225816





------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com  2007-10-08 01:44 EST -------
Here is my review:

Good:
+ meets packaging and naming guidelines
+ project is GPL
+ spec file is clearly written
+ source is pristine
5934c08d12407d8233416343cd73df24  gnome-doc-utils-0.12.0.tar.bz2
+ lists buildrequires
+ file ownership looks good (except yelp problem mentioned also below)

Needs attention:
- rpmlint output
gnome-doc-utils.src: W: invalid-license GFDL+
gnome-doc-utils.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libxml2-python
gnome-doc-utils.noarch: W: invalid-license GFDL+
gnome-doc-utils-stylesheets.noarch: W: no-documentation
gnome-doc-utils-stylesheets.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/pkgconfig/gnome-doc-utils.pc
gnome-doc-utils-stylesheets.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/pkgconfig/xml2po.pc
- /usr/share/gnome/help ownership:
Dunno if it would make sense have a different package (like filesystem) to
own this dir rather than yelp if it is problematic to require yelp?

If GFDL is mentioned as an additional license for the .xml files then I think
LGPL+ should also be mentioned for the .xsl files.
The GFDL license is not included though, so since it is embedded I am
not sure if it is strictly necessary to mention GFDL in the License field.

Otherwise the package looks good to me.

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