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: oki4linux - OKIPAGE (4w, 4w Plus, 6w, 8w, 8w Lite, 8z), OL400w printer driver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209536 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-10-16 02:51 EST ------- This builds fine in mock and the package itself installs fine for me, but I haven't the hardware to actually test this so I can only review this for form. Do you actually have the hardware to test this on? rpmlint says: E: oki4linux non-readable /dev/oki4drv 0660 I don't see why this wouldn't be OK; it's the same permissions as /dev/lp0. E: oki4linux no-chkconfig-line /etc/rc.d/init.d/oki4daemon I'm not sure what this is on about, as there sure looks to be a chkconfig line there. According to the rpmlint source, it doesn't seem to want anything other than a single space between "chkconfig:" and the numbers. I do not know what the chkconfg executable itself wants to see. W: oki4linux incoherent-init-script-name oki4daemon It wants to see the initscript named after the package. I don't think this is a major issue as it seems reasonable to name it after the daemon's executable name instead. Wow, the license is old BSD-with-advertising clause. It's still free, though. I don't think we generally indicate the old BSD license in any special way. * source files match upstream: 54c85488d2489d2431ce518916b20515 oki4linux-2.1gst.tar.gz * package meets naming and packaging guidelines (alpha characters are permitted in the version number in this situation). * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. O build root is a bit different. The recommended root uses "%{__id_u}" where you have "id -u". I don't think this is a blocker. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (none) * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. ? rpmlint has one complaint I'm not sure about. * final provides and requires are sane: oki4linux = 2.1gst-1.fc6 = /bin/sh /sbin/chkconfig /usr/bin/perl ghostscript initscripts perl(Getopt::Std) perl(Sys::Syslog) ! %check is not present; no test suite upstream. I haven't the hardware to test. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is actually larger than the rest of the package by a factor of ten or more, but the whole package is only ~350K installed so there's not much point in splitting things out. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. I'd approve this if someone could verify that it works. -- 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