[Bug 427481] Review Request: publican - publication tool chain

[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: publican - publication tool chain


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481


petersen at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com  2008-02-12 19:52 EST -------
Thanks for the update, Jeff.

For the record here is the rpmlint output now:

 publican.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 86, tab: line 1)

which you may want to fix before importing to cvs, and:

 publican.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libxslt
 publican.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided documentation-devel

which are ok.

(BTW I filed a bug to have po2xml moved from kdesdk to a separate subpackage
to avoid the huge dependency on kdesdk.)

Updating the remaining MUST items from the review in comment 87:

[+] 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.

[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source

8e3b3709c1daad154be9759a6c8ee443  publican-0.29.tgz

[+] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.

So AFAICT all review MUST items are now satisfied, and all the major points
raised have been addressed I think.  I am not a license lawyer obviously,
but the licensing seems reasonable enough to me - if there should
still be issues with the interactions of the licenses I hope they can be
ironed out later if necessary.

Thanks for the review.

Package is APPROVED for inclusion in Fedora.

-- 
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.