Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: a2ps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225235 kevin@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|kevin@xxxxxxxxx |twaugh@xxxxxxxxxx Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2007-02-03 11:37 EST ------- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. See Below - Spec has consistant macro usage. 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: 0c8e0c31b08c14f7a7198ce967eb3281 a2ps-4.13b.tar.gz 0c8e0c31b08c14f7a7198ce967eb3281 a2ps-4.13b.tar.gz.1 fee1456d0e6e94af4fc5b5a1bb9687b7 i18n-fonts-0.1.tar.gz fee1456d0e6e94af4fc5b5a1bb9687b7 i18n-fonts-0.1.tar.gz See below - Package needs ExcludeArch OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. See below - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. See below - .a/.la files are removed. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. You use RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}. Would be good to stick to one style? 2. Is there a bug filed for the # Temp exclude on ppc64 as no emacs there right now ExcludeArch: ppc64 3. Should fix the buildroot to the standard. 4. Should the .a .la files be shipped? I suppose if there is a devel package, the .a might be usefull. 5. Our good friend rpmlint says: E: a2ps-debuginfo tag-not-utf8 %changelog Not sure where the non utf8 in the changelog is... do you see it? E: a2ps-debuginfo script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/a2ps-4.13/lib/basename.c E: a2ps-debuginfo script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/a2ps-4.13/lib/xmalloc.c Permissions wrong on those source files? W: a2ps summary-ended-with-dot Converts text and other types of files to PostScript(TM). Don't end summary with . E: a2ps tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: a2ps non-utf8-spec-file a2ps.spec Ah, the entire spec seems to be non utf8... W: a2ps prereq-use sed, coreutils W: a2ps unversioned-explicit-obsoletes a2ps-i18n W: a2ps unversioned-explicit-provides a2ps-i18n Perhaps should have versions where that was obsoleted and provide the next version? Of course that may have been so long ago that we can just remove these now. W: a2ps macro-in-%changelog files Thats in one of the very first changelogs from 1998: - narrower range of %files splats. W: a2ps mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 169, tab: line 211) Pick tabs or spaces for cleanness? E: a2ps file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/a2ps/afm/fonts.map This looks like it can be ignored. W: a2ps devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/liba2ps.a Should be removed or moved to devel. W: a2ps file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/a2ps.info.gz Need to run iconv on the info file before install? W: a2ps devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/liba2ps.h Should be removed or moved to devel. W: a2ps dangerous-command-in-%post mv Could the ./make_fonts_map.sh be modified to handle the moving the new maps file in place logic? 6. Instead of 'exit 0' at the end of the scriptlets, perhaps add '|| :' to the scriplets? Although it's not clear if thats cleaner. 7. You are missing: Requires(post): /sbin/install-info Requires(preun): /sbin/install-info 8. I assume upstream is dead and you can't get any patches pushed up? 9. 3 outstanding bugs, might look at that, especially the hebrew support and splitting -devel package. -- 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