[Bug 398261] Review Request: redet-doc - Documentation for the Redet tool

[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: redet-doc - Documentation for the Redet tool


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=398261


pertusus at free.fr changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |pertusus at free.fr
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+




------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr  2007-11-25 08:21 EST -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> 
> > There is no explicit license for the manual (as far as I can
> > tell), so I guess that GPLv2 like for redet is the best choice
> > for the license?
> 
> Upstream re-released the 8.23 tarball. Redet is now GPLv3, and upstream thinks
> that the manual should be GPLv3 as well.

Indeed I have seen that in the redet review. It is a bit 
confusing since in the doc, unless I am wrong it is referred to 
the GPLv2, but it is indeed better to mark it as GPLv3 like redet.

> > I would also suggest dropping the dependency on redet. One
> > may want to browse the documentation without having redet 
> > installed.
> 
> Most -doc packages (python-docs, bouml-doc) have the parent packages as a
> dependency.

But is it really right? Wouldn't it be better to be able to 
browse the documentation without actually installing the program?
Having other packages do one thing doesn't mean it is the best
choice.

I personally avoid having doc packages depend on the main package
in my packages (for example libdap-doc) and I advise against this 
in reviews. Now if you prefer to depend on the main package, I'm
fine with it, it was just a suggestion.

In any case I verified that it matches upstream, so it is 

APPROVED

Still, please consider dropping %{?dist}, it seems to me that it
is especially unndeeded or even harmful in that case -- but I won't
make that a blocker either.

-- 
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.