[Bug 199108] Review Request: gutenprint: Printer Drivers Package

[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: gutenprint: Printer Drivers Package


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199108


kevin at tummy.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |kevin at tummy.com
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163778
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com  2006-09-06 17:05 EST -------
OK - Package name
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (GPL)
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:
ede8acbd1e94c9d4fd366fb37e335bfb  gutenprint-5.0.0.tar.bz2
ede8acbd1e94c9d4fd366fb37e335bfb  gutenprint-5.0.0.tar.bz2.1
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang
See below - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
See below - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
OK - .pc files in -devel subpackage.
OK - .so files in -devel subpackage.
OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
OK - .la files are removed.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
See below - No rpmlint output.

SHOULD Items:

OK - Should include License or ask upstream to include it.
See below - Should build in mock.
OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.

Issues:

1.  No need for the:
Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig
Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig

Using post/postun with -p /sbin/ldconfig adds the dependency for you.

2. You're mixing the %{buildroot} and the $RPM_BUILD_ROOT macros.
Try and pick one and use only that style...

3. The package doesn't seem to build under mock/devel/i386:

RPM build errors:
    File not found by glob: /var/tmp/gutenprint-5.0.0-0.7.fc6-root-mockbuild/
usr/lib/gimp/*/plug-ins/print

The plug-ins directory there is empty. Perhaps a missing BuildRequires or 
something
that's preventing the plug-ins from being built? Removing that from the files
list gets it to build.

4. rpmlint says:

W: gutenprint macro-in-%changelog doc
W: gutenprint macro-in-%changelog configure

rpm will expand macros even in changelogs. Change them to %%doc and %%configure 
to
prevent this.

W: gutenprint mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs

Should pick one or the other.

W: gutenprint-cups no-documentation
W: gutenprint-extras no-documentation
W: gutenprint-foomatic no-documentation
W: gutenprint-ppds-cs no-documentation
W: gutenprint-ppds-da no-documentation
W: gutenprint-ppds-de no-documentation
W: gutenprint-ppds-el no-documentation
W: gutenprint-ppds-en_GB no-documentation
W: gutenprint-ppds-es no-documentation
W: gutenprint-ppds-fr no-documentation
W: gutenprint-ppds-hu no-documentation
W: gutenprint-ppds-ja no-documentation
W: gutenprint-ppds-nb no-documentation
W: gutenprint-ppds-nl no-documentation
W: gutenprint-ppds-pl no-documentation
W: gutenprint-ppds-pt no-documentation
W: gutenprint-ppds-sk no-documentation
W: gutenprint-ppds-sv no-documentation
W: gutenprint-ppds-zh_TW no-documentation

All those can be ignored.

5. Might include Changelog as a %doc?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.