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=225795 Jon Ciesla <limburgher@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |limburgher@xxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |limburgher@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-04-05 12:44:34 EDT --- Fresh review: Good: - rpmlint checks return: ghostscript.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) renderer -> tenderer, rendered, render er The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghostscript.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bitmapped -> bit mapped, bit-mapped, bitmap The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. Ignore these. ghostscript.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog The latest changelog entry doesn't contain a version. Please insert the version that is coherent with the version of the package and rebuild it. Trivial, fix. ghostscript.x86_64: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/ghostscript/9.05/Resource/Init/Fontmap A file not in /etc or /var is marked as being a configuration file. Please put your conf files in /etc or /var. ghostscript.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /usr/share/ghostscript/9.05/Resource/Init/Fontmap A configuration file is stored in your package without the noreplace flag. A way to resolve this is to put the following in your SPEC file: %config(noreplace) /etc/your_config_file_here ghostscript.x86_64: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/ghostscript/9.05/Resource/Init/gs_init.ps A file not in /etc or /var is marked as being a configuration file. Please put your conf files in /etc or /var. ghostscript.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /usr/share/ghostscript/9.05/Resource/Init/gs_init.ps A configuration file is stored in your package without the noreplace flag. A way to resolve this is to put the following in your SPEC file: %config(noreplace) /etc/your_config_file_here ghostscript.x86_64: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/ghostscript/9.05/Resource/Init/Fontmap.GS A file not in /etc or /var is marked as being a configuration file. Please put your conf files in /etc or /var. ghostscript.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /usr/share/ghostscript/9.05/Resource/Init/Fontmap.GS A configuration file is stored in your package without the noreplace flag. A way to resolve this is to put the following in your SPEC file: %config(noreplace) /etc/your_config_file_here ghostscript.x86_64: E: zero-length /etc/ghostscript/9.05/Fontmap.local ghostscript.x86_64: E: zero-length /etc/ghostscript/9.05/CIDFnmap.local ghostscript.x86_64: E: zero-length /etc/ghostscript/9.05/cidfmap.local ghostscript.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lprsetup.sh Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. ghostscript.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ps2ps2 Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. ghostscript.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dumphint Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. ghostscript.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pphs Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. ghostscript.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary unix-lpr.sh Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. ghostscript-cups.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. ghostscript-cups.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/cups/filter/gstopxl The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. ghostscript-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ghostscript-9.05/contrib/gdevcd8.c The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. ghostscript-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ghostscript-9.05/contrib/gdevlx32.c The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. ghostscript-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ghostscript-9.05/contrib/opvp/gdevopvp.c The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. ghostscript-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ghostscript-9.05/contrib/gdevdj9.c The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. ghostscript-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ghostscript-9.05/contrib/gdevbjc_.h The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. ghostscript-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. ghostscript-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ijs-config Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. ghostscript-gtk.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) renderer -> tenderer, rendered, render er The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghostscript-gtk.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. ghostscript-gtk.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gsx Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. Most of these can probably be ignored, but give them a look, especially regarding man pages and documentation, and make adjustments there if possible. ghostscript-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/ghostscript/9.05/examples/cjk/gscjk_ak.ps The character encoding of this file is not UTF-8. Consider converting it in the specfile's %prep section for example using iconv(1). ghostscript-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/ghostscript/9.05/examples/cjk/gscjk_ac.ps The character encoding of this file is not UTF-8. Consider converting it in the specfile's %prep section for example using iconv(1). ghostscript-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/ghostscript/9.05/examples/cjk/gscjk_ag.ps The character encoding of this file is not UTF-8. Consider converting it in the specfile's %prep section for example using iconv(1). ghostscript-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/ghostscript/9.05/examples/cjk/gscjk_aj.ps The character encoding of this file is not UTF-8. Consider converting it in the specfile's %prep section for example using iconv(1). Fix. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license ( GPLv3+ and Redistributable, no modification permitted ) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file - devel package ok - no .la files - post/postun ldconfig ok - devel requires base package n-v-r So it's just the rpmlint stuff from what I see, let we know if you want me to commit anything. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review