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=592487 --- Comment #15 from Louis Lagendijk <louis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-01-11 18:07:15 EST --- Thanks for the thorough review! (In reply to comment #13) > I don't see that clarification from the author included in the package. As I > wrote before in comment 6, you need to include the email from the author with > headers in the package as documentation, or you can package the updated version > that has the fixed manpage. Of course, the author of the code should still > follow the directions in the GPL itself and include proper license blocks in > the code. Added, I don't understand how I missed this. My apologies! > > AUTHORS, COPYING, ChangeLog, README and README.Fedora seem to be duplicated > between each package. You should not duplicate files in that manner. All of > the packages require ffgtk, so placing that information in the ffgtk package > should be sufficient. > Done, removed. Rpmlint now complains about missing documentation for the plugin packages.That is why I added the files in the first place. Should this be ignored? > I'm unsure about the scriptlets. The dependencies for them seem to be missing, > for one, but even then, I don't understand the point of setting up a printer if > cups happens to be running at the moment the package is installed (or > upgraded). That seems rather nondeterministic. Wouldn't it be best to leave > management of the printer to the end user? > I copied this more or less verbatim from the cups-pdf package. The check if cups is running is there because lpadmin will throw an error when cups is not running. I have to admit that it escapes me why this check is not done when the package is removed though. It is fine with me to remove the scriptlets if you prefer so. > This package, like many, bundles one of the md5.c implementations. I've > requested that FPC give this a blanket exemption as a copylib. > Ok, I will wait for the outcome. I understand the delay. Is there a lib that provides the functionality? If so I can create patch to use that and submit that upstream. I could not find a suitable lib so far, but will continue looking. > X final provides and requires; capifax subpackage is missing scripelet > dependencies. There is a Requires cups, which offers lpadmin. Do we need more? The dependencies for cups and ghostscript are also borrowed from cups-pdf. > X many duplicates in %files. I m not sure I understand this one. Does this refer to the doc sections, or would you like to remove the .so.0.0 files and keep only the .so.0 libs? If so, I could something like find %{buildroot} -name '*.so.0' -exec mv -f {}.0.0 {} ';' (untested) Thanks again! -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review