Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=912089
--- Comment #7 from Jamie Nguyen <[email protected]> --- Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/jasmine-node/nodejs-docco.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/jasmine-node/SRPMS/nodejs-docco-0.6.1-1.fc18.src.rpm > - Latest version is packaged. > > There is a 0.6.1 upstream release now. Updated. New dependency: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921889 > - Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. > > The python-pygments is needed to run docco in %build so needs a BR. Done. > - Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. > > There are fonts included in the docs directory. I've chosen just to delete these webfonts. The css doesn't break without them, and I'm not sure there are actually any web fonts at all in Fedora at the moment: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2012-December/008783.html > - General issues. > > If docs is the documentation for docco shouldn't it be in %doc? Done. > Is resources really not needed? Isn't it intended as a default > template for when you run docco on a file without using --template > or -css switches? Argh, that's my bad. Re-included resources, and also the docs themselves require the resources directory (so /usr/share/docco/resources is now symlinked to both docdir/nodejs-docco and nodejs_sitelib/docco). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=yovFD5mXv8&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
