[Bug 755069] Review Request: SpliX - Driver for QPDL/SPL2 printers (Samsung and several Xerox printers)
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Nov 21 16:39:19 UTC 2011
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=755069
Hedayat Vatankhah <hedayatv at gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Hedayat Vatankhah <hedayatv at gmail.com> 2011-11-21 11:39:18 EST ---
My Review:
MUST Items:
===================
rpmlint output:
splix.src: W: invalid-url Source0: splix-2.0.1.20111121svn.tar.gz
splix.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/splix-2.0.1/COPYING
splix.src: W: non-coherent-filename splix-2.0.1-0.2.20111121svn.src.rpm
splix-2.0.1-0.2.20111121svn.fc16.src.rpm
splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/splix/src/ppdfile.cpp
splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/splix/src/algo0x0d.cpp
splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/splix/src/compress.cpp
splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/splix/include/rendering.h
splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/splix/src/printer.cpp
splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/splix/src/bandplane.cpp
splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/splix/src/page.cpp
splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/splix/include/colors.h
splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/splix/src/algo0x0e.cpp
splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/splix/src/document.cpp
splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/splix/src/colors.cpp
splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/splix/src/semaphore.cpp
splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/splix/src/cache.cpp
splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/splix/include/request.h
splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/splix/src/request.cpp
splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/splix/include/algorithm.h
splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/splix/include/band.h
splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/splix/include/compress.h
splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/splix/src/pstoqpdl.cpp
splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/splix/include/printer.h
splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/splix/include/algo0x11.h
splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/splix/src/algorithm.cpp
splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/splix/include/document.h
splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/splix/src/algo0x11.cpp
splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/splix/include/qpdl.h
splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/splix/src/qpdl.cpp
splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/splix/include/ppdfile.h
splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/splix/src/band.cpp
splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/splix/include/semaphore.h
splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/splix/include/bandplane.h
splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/splix/include/algo0x0d.h
splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/splix/include/cache.h
splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/splix/include/algo0x0e.h
splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/splix/src/rendering.cpp
splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/splix/src/rastertoqpdl.cpp
splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/splix/include/options.h
splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/splix/include/page.h
splix.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: splix-2.0.1.20111121svn.tar.gz
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 38 errors, 4 warnings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Remarks:
- invalid url errors are fine since it is a pre-release package
- src.rpm file name doesn't match the release tag inside the package. IMO,
since new src.rpms will be generated after importing the package, it should be
fine.
- COPYING file is a bit out-dated. It would be preferred if upstream is
notified about this and update it. But doesn't look like to block the review.
Naming: OK (pre-release snapshot)
Spec file naming: OK
Maybe including ChangeLog,TODO and Thanks files as doc is appropriate
(specially Thanks file)
Licensing: OK (GPLv2, spec matches)
include license file as %doc: OK
SPEC in American English: OK
SPEC legibility: OK
Builds fine: Koji Build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3529728 OK
Locale handling: it is not handled conventionally and is included in ppd files.
No dynamic libraries OK
No external libs included OK
Directory ownership: OK
No duplicate file listing: OK
Proper permissions for files: OK
Consistency use macros: OK
Permissable code or content: OK
No large docs: OK
Doc files not required for running: OK
No header files in non-devel package: OK
No static libraries: OK
No .so files: OK
No -devel packages needed. OK
No .la files: OK
Not a GUI application, so no .desktop file. OK
No duplicate file ownership OK
Valid UTF-8 file names OK
Should Items
=============
Package includes license text
Package built in Koji
Cannot test if package functions properly
No scriptlets
No subpackages
No -devel subpackage
No file based dependency
No binaries which would need man pages
Result
========
The package looks fine and can be accepted. Only a few notes/questions:
1. Can you ask upstream to update its COPYING file and also FSF address in
copyright header in .h and .cpp files? But as far as I can see, it is not
required to be done before acceptance.
2. Maybe adding these files as %doc makes sense: ChangeLog, TODO and Thanks ?!
Specially the last one.
--
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.
More information about the package-review
mailing list