[Bug 254057] Review Request: e16-docs - Dcumentation for Enlightenment, DR16

[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: e16-docs -  Dcumentation for Enlightenment, DR16


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=254057





------- Additional Comments From kevin at 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


-- 
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.