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: min12xxw - Print filter for Minolta printer Alias: min12xxw-review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=242873
tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2007-06-06 16:13 EST ------- * source files match upstream: c32de0293c27335e99114076fe8237aa6c98b05a0fc3d4e7bc8dc594915fe100 min12xxw-0.0.9.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane. * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. I do not have the hardware required to test this pacakge. * 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 small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. (Actually the GPL is larger than the executables, but the entire package is only 64K.) * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files.
APPROVED