[Bug 427482] Review Request: publican-fedora - Fedora Publishing Theme
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: publican-fedora - Fedora Publishing Theme https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427482 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-13 03:24 EST --- (In reply to comment #11) It's pretty hard for the Fedora docs team to comment on this since they can't actually use the system until it's in Fedora. I'm sure once it is in there and they can play with it a bit, they will have a bunch of changes to the look and feel, and the common content. In fact I'm hoping they will want to take over this package :) +1 That was the plan; no need to slow the packaging process down for looking down at that level. Once it's a package, then we can commence to arguing stuff with the upstream, like, Can you switch everything to uses dashes '-' instead of underscores '_'? I kid!! Actually, I've looked a bit at the source and have seen this system on-and-off over the years, and haven't seen any surprises. Using it for Fedora Docs is going to mean some potential modifications to the source XML (file names, other conventions), but that is expected. I reckon stuff will build with just a little fiddling. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 427482] Review Request: publican-fedora - Fedora Publishing Theme
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: publican-fedora - Fedora Publishing Theme https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427482 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-13 03:34 EST --- (In reply to comment #11) (In reply to comment #10) rpmlint says: publican-fedora.src: W: invalid-license Open Publication License The Fedora short license name is Open Publication: see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#head-7c329132fff48be993272795da69b49c7812e8a9 Fixed. The legal notice specifies ... Open Publication License, V1.0 or later ... My understanding from Red Hat Legal (discussion with Mark Webbink) is that we don't want to use the or later language because we don't want to commit to using something that doesn't even exist yet. I'm not sure if this matters. That can exist in the toolchain and not be the same in the doc itself, right? As upstream you have a range of licensing decisions you can make, but since it's actually RHT as the upstream, I recommend this more conservative language. If you like, you can swipe the lingo directly from the Fedora Docs legal notice: http://docs.fedoraproject.org/release-notes/f8/en_US/legalnotice.html http://docs.fedoraproject.org/release-notes/f8/en_US/sn-legalnotice.html The first is a pointer with set-up, so the set-up lingo matches what the main legal notice page has. The wording on the sn-legalnotice.html is directly from the OPL; the rest is a modified grandchild of the legal notice that used to be in RHEL docs, inherited through the original Fedora days. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 427482] Review Request: publican-fedora - Fedora Publishing Theme
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: publican-fedora - Fedora Publishing Theme https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427482 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-13 03:53 EST --- Created an attachment (id=294760) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=294760action=view) publican-fedora.spec-1.patch -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 427482] Review Request: publican-fedora - Fedora Publishing Theme
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: publican-fedora - Fedora Publishing Theme https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427482 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-13 04:00 EST --- I don't see any other problems with the package, but reviewers, feel free to post additional comments if you should spot anything I might have overlooked. Package is APPROVED, but please address the minor points raised above. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 427482] Review Request: publican-fedora - Fedora Publishing Theme
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: publican-fedora - Fedora Publishing Theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427482
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-13 03:50 EST ---
Here is the review:
+:ok, =:needs attention
MUST Items:
[=] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
publican-fedora.src:17: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes
documentation-devel-Fedora
publican-fedora.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided documentation-devel-Fedora
These are ok.
publican-fedora.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.8-1 0.8-2
Please take care of this one.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines.
[=] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
Please remove the redundant Requires(post) and Requires(postun).
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
(But please consider Karsten's comments above.)
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source
f0d61bc6d241c57e03c91f40120c0e87
package-review/publican-fedora/publican-fedora-0.8.tgz
[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for
details.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
SHOULD Items:
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
I tested create_book --brand fedora --name ... and a few obvious make targets,
and it seems to work ok.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 427482] Review Request: publican-fedora - Fedora Publishing Theme
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: publican-fedora - Fedora Publishing Theme https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427482 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-13 18:15 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: publican-fedora Short Description: Publican documentation template files for fedora Owners: jfearn Branches: devel, F-8, EL-5, EL-4 InitialCC: mdious Cvsextras Commits: yes -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 427482] Review Request: publican-fedora - Fedora Publishing Theme
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: publican-fedora - Fedora Publishing Theme https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427482 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 427482] Review Request: publican-fedora - Fedora Publishing Theme
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: publican-fedora - Fedora Publishing Theme https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427482 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 427482] Review Request: publican-fedora - Fedora Publishing Theme
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: publican-fedora - Fedora Publishing Theme https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427482 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-13 18:56 EST --- cvs admin is done -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 427482] Review Request: publican-fedora - Fedora Publishing Theme
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: publican-fedora - Fedora Publishing Theme https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427482 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-13 19:49 EST --- built in koji http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=36125 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 427482] Review Request: publican-fedora - Fedora Publishing Theme
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: publican-fedora - Fedora Publishing Theme https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427482 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-12 21:52 EST --- (In reply to comment #10) rpmlint says: publican-fedora.src:16: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes documentation-devel-Fedora This is ok, but probably it can be dropped assuming there aren't many people using the old package. publican-fedora.src: W: invalid-license Open Publication License The Fedora short license name is Open Publication: see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#head-7c329132fff48be993272795da69b49c7812e8a9 Fixed. A few comments: publican-0.29/Book_Template/en-US/ and publican-fedora-0.8/Book_Template/en-US are the same, but presumably they are duplicated because they are under different licenses, right? This is correct. The README file says for building Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux documentation. Changed to Fedora. It would be valuable to get comments on this package from the Fedora Docs project since I am not really qualified to evaluate the templates, etc. It's pretty hard for the Fedora docs team to comment on this since they can't actually use the system until it's in Fedora. I'm sure once it is in there and they can play with it a bit, they will have a bunch of changes to the look and feel, and the common content. In fact I'm hoping they will want to take over this package :) I don't think the content needs to be exact since no Fedora documentation uses this system yet. Otherwise the package basically looks ok to me. http://svn.fedorahosted.org/svn/publican/trunk/Files/publican-fedora-0.8-2.fc9.src.rpm http://svn.fedorahosted.org/svn/publican/trunk/Files/publican-fedora.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 427482] Review Request: publican-fedora - Fedora Publishing Theme
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: publican-fedora - Fedora Publishing Theme https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427482 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-12 20:31 EST --- Updated urls are: Spec URL: http://svn.fedorahosted.org/svn/publican/trunk/Files/publican-fedora.spec SRPM URL: http://svn.fedorahosted.org/svn/publican/trunk/Files/publican-fedora-0.8-0.fc9.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 427482] Review Request: publican-fedora - Fedora Publishing Theme
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: publican-fedora - Fedora Publishing Theme https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427482 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-12 21:12 EST --- rpmlint says: publican-fedora.src:16: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes documentation-devel-Fedora This is ok, but probably it can be dropped assuming there aren't many people using the old package. publican-fedora.src: W: invalid-license Open Publication License The Fedora short license name is Open Publication: see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#head-7c329132fff48be993272795da69b49c7812e8a9 A few comments: publican-0.29/Book_Template/en-US/ and publican-fedora-0.8/Book_Template/en-US are the same, but presumably they are duplicated because they are under different licenses, right? The README file says for building Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux documentation. It would be valuable to get comments on this package from the Fedora Docs project since I am not really qualified to evaluate the templates, etc. Otherwise the package basically looks ok to me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 427482] Review Request: publican-fedora - Fedora Publishing Theme
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: publican-fedora - Fedora Publishing Theme https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427482 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-13 02:21 EST --- I think it would be better to change the package Group from Applications/Text to something else like Development/Libraries. I am not sure if there is a more appropriate group. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 427482] Review Request: publican-fedora - Fedora Publishing Theme
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: publican-fedora - Fedora Publishing Theme https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427482 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-12 00:51 EST --- http://svn.fedorahosted.org/svn/documentation-devel/trunk/Files/publican-fedora-0.8-0.fc9.src.rpm http://svn.fedorahosted.org/svn/documentation-devel/trunk/Files/publican-fedora.spec - Setup per Brand Book_Templates - Fix soure and URL paths - Use release in source path - add OPL text as COPYING - removed coreutils reqq -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 427482] Review Request: publican-fedora - Fedora Publishing Theme
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: publican-fedora - Fedora Publishing Theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427482
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-07 08:40 EST ---
Requires(post): coreutils
Requires(postun): coreutils
are not needed.
Minor: -n %{name}-%{version} is superfluous for %setup.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 427482] Review Request: publican-fedora - Fedora Publishing Theme
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: publican-fedora - Fedora Publishing Theme https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427482 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: publican- |documentation-devel-Fedora -|fedora - Fedora Publishing |Fedora Theme|Theme --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-07 01:35 EST --- http://svn.fedorahosted.org/svn/documentation-devel/trunk/Files/publican-fedora-0.6-0.fc9.src.rpm http://svn.fedorahosted.org/svn/documentation-devel/trunk/Files/publican-fedora.spec Updated for renamed master package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
