Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=254057
Summary: Review Request: e16-docs - Dcumentation for Enlightenment, DR16 Product: Fedora Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: terjeros@phys.ntnu.no QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,notting@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/e16/e16-docs.spec SRPM URL: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/e16/e16-docs-0.16.8-0.1.0.02.fc8.src.rpm Description: This package contains documentation for Enlightenment, DR16.
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: e16-docs - Dcumentation for Enlightenment, DR16
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=254057
mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |254056
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: e16-docs - Dcumentation for Enlightenment, DR16
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=254057
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|devel |rawhide
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: e16-docs - Dcumentation for Enlightenment, DR16
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=254057
Bug 254057 depends on bug 254056, which changed state.
Bug 254056 Summary: Review Request: e16 - The Enlightenment window manager, DR16 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=254056
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
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: e16-docs - Dcumentation for Enlightenment, DR16
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=254057
------- Additional Comments From terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2008-03-27 15:02 EST ------- #254056 is now resolved and we can continue, updated package (see #254056 for license):
spec: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/e16/e16-docs.spec srpm: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/e16/e16-docs-0.16.8.0.1-1.fc8.src.rpm
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: e16-docs - Dcumentation for Enlightenment, DR16
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=254057
kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |kevin@tummy.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review?
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2008-04-28 21:42 EST ------- I would be happy to review this. Look for a full review here in a few.
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: e16-docs - Dcumentation for Enlightenment, DR16
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=254057
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2008-04-28 21:57 EST ------- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (MIT with advertising) 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:
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 has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install
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 function as described. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version
Issues:
1. As with all the e16 packages, you might ping upstream to relicence to a more friendly license. Has there been any response so far?
2. rpmlint says:
e16-docs.noarch: W: invalid-license MIT with advertising e16-docs.src: W: invalid-license MIT with advertising
3. Is the only reason this package Requires e16 for the /usr/share/e16 directory? If so, perhaps move it to a /usr/share/e16-docs/ dir and remove the Requires?
4. This package ships with 2 fonts, can you just Require a needed font package for those? Or are those specific fonts needed? /usr/share/e16/E-docs/Vera.ttf /usr/share/e16/E-docs/VeraBd.ttf
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: e16-docs - Dcumentation for Enlightenment, DR16
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=254057
------- Additional Comments From terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2008-04-29 13:33 EST -------
- As with all the e16 packages, you might ping upstream to relicence
to a more friendly license. Has there been any response so far?
I talked to Kim, which maintains e16 now, was not directly against it, however there a lot of contributions to the now very old source code. Reaching consensus with everyone seems a bit off for such a old project.
However it would make sense to change the license in - yet to be released - e17. It seems already to be changed to something like pure MIT:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2008-April/msg00020.html https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=441965
http://enlightenment.org/viewvc/e17/apps/e/COPYING?revision=1.3 http://enlightenment.org/viewvc/e17/apps/e/COPYING-PLAIN?revision=1.1
- rpmlint says:
e16-docs.noarch: W: invalid-license MIT with advertising e16-docs.src: W: invalid-license MIT with advertising
It's should be fine, ref. e16 and e16-themes was ok with this.
- Is the only reason this package Requires e16 for the /usr/share/e16 directory?
If so, perhaps move it to a /usr/share/e16-docs/ dir and remove the Requires?
The real reason is that docs don't make much sense without e16 and that document viewer for e16 help files is in e16.
- This package ships with 2 fonts, can you just Require
a needed font package for those? Or are those specific fonts needed? /usr/share/e16/E-docs/Vera.ttf /usr/share/e16/E-docs/VeraBd.ttf
They are available in bitstream-vera-fonts, will fix this.
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: e16-docs - Dcumentation for Enlightenment, DR16
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=254057
------- Additional Comments From terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2008-04-29 13:55 EST ------- New updated package: - fonts already in bitstream-vera-fonts, symlink - fix typo in summary
spec: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/e16/e16-docs.spec srpm: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/e16/e16-docs-0.16.8.0.1-2.fc8.src.rpm
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: e16-docs - Dcumentation for Enlightenment, DR16
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=254057
kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2008-04-30 18:36 EST ------- Sorry for the delay. All blockers seem fixed to me, so this package is APPROVED.
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: e16-docs - Dcumentation for Enlightenment, DR16
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=254057
terjeros@phys.ntnu.no changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
------- Additional Comments From terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2008-04-30 20:57 EST -------
Sorry for the delay.
No problemo :-)
All blockers seem fixed to me, so this package is APPROVED.
Thanks!
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: e16-docs Short Description: Documentation for Enlightenment, DR16 Owners: terjeros Branches: F-7 F-8 F-9 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes
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: e16-docs - Dcumentation for Enlightenment, DR16
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=254057
kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2008-05-01 11:29 EST ------- cvs done.
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: e16-docs - Dcumentation for Enlightenment, DR16
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=254057
terjeros@phys.ntnu.no changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
------- Additional Comments From terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2008-05-01 16:45 EST ------- built and bodhi pushed.
Thanks for kind help!
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla