[Bug 617592] Review Request: libaccounts-qt - Library for handling the account storage

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617592

--- Comment #17 from Chen Lei <supercyper1 at gmail.com> 2010-08-09 08:44:35 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> Sorry for having been a bit nit-picking. However, I think the package is more
> consistent now. Since docs are usually added with %doc, the Fedora guidelines
> define the namespace of the doc files to be %{name}. It doesn't matter where
> upstream wants to put them. If the package provided only html docs and no qch
> file, you would have to add them with %doc and they would therefore be placed
> in %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}. A single additional doc variant (qch) should
> not lead to a change of the namespace. But maybe you can ask the upstream
> developer whether he might adapt the naming schemes of libaccounts-glib and
> libaccounts-qt.
I never mind of changing the place of docs, I just consider the locatation of
docs is a very trivial issue before Fedora package guideline has new changes :)

KDE-SIG seems want to talk docs issues again.

> Here comes the formal review. The package looks fine and is ready now. 
> You should update the referenced location of the upstream SRPM, though. Release
> 4 of the package is no longer available, but the tarball of release 5 equals
> that of your package too.

I'll add a permanent link to upstream SRPM before importing to git, the
permanent link don't exist when I try to update this package to the latest
upstream SRPM.

-- 
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.