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 ------- Additional Comments From panemade@xxxxxxxxx 2006-09-28 02:59 EST ------- Peter, you confused me. I rechecked for .so files and found that rpm -ql gutenprint | grep so /usr/lib/gutenprint/5.0.0/modules/color-traditional.so /usr/lib/gutenprint/5.0.0/modules/print-canon.so /usr/lib/gutenprint/5.0.0/modules/print-escp2.so /usr/lib/gutenprint/5.0.0/modules/print-lexmark.so /usr/lib/gutenprint/5.0.0/modules/print-olympus.so /usr/lib/gutenprint/5.0.0/modules/print-pcl.so /usr/lib/gutenprint/5.0.0/modules/print-ps.so /usr/lib/gutenprint/5.0.0/modules/print-raw.so /usr/lib/libgutenprint.so.2 /usr/lib/libgutenprint.so.2.0.0 /usr/lib/libgutenprintui.so.1 /usr/lib/libgutenprintui.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib/libgutenprintui2.so.1 /usr/lib/libgutenprintui2.so.1.0.0 AND rpm -ql gutenprint-devel | grep so /usr/lib/libgutenprint.so /usr/lib/libgutenprintui.so /usr/lib/libgutenprintui2.so This clearly shows that packaging for gutenpeint is corret. isn't it? -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review