Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225795
Summary: Merge Review: ghostscript Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: nobody@fedoraproject.org QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com CC: twaugh@redhat.com
Fedora Merge Review: ghostscript
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/ghostscript/ Initial Owner: twaugh@redhat.com
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: ghostscript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225795
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium
lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lemenkov@gmail.com
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: ghostscript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225795
------- Additional Comments From lemenkov@gmail.com 2007-04-10 14:12 EST ------- BTW version 8.56 already released but we still got pretty old v8.15
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: ghostscript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225795
------- Additional Comments From twaugh@redhat.com 2007-04-10 18:23 EST ------- No, we are shipping ESP Ghostscript which is at 8.15.4. The GPL Ghostscript branch has several drivers missing compared to ESP Ghostscript. The upstream merge is not yet complete.
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: ghostscript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225795
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|normal |medium
nsoranzo@tiscali.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |nsoranzo@tiscali.it
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: ghostscript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225795
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora
------- Additional Comments From nsoranzo@tiscali.it 2007-08-09 08:39 EST ------- FYI on the 1st of August GPL Ghostscript 8.60 has been released, first stable release after the merge with ESP:
http://www.ghostscript.com/awki/GPL_Ghostscript_8.60
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: ghostscript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225795
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|devel |rawhide
pertusus@free.fr changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pertusus@free.fr
------- Additional Comments From pertusus@free.fr 2008-02-27 04:59 EST ------- In /usr/share/ghostscript/8.61/Resource/CMap/ most (if not all) cmap files annot be modified, for example usr/share/ghostscript/8.61/Resource/CMap/78-EUC-H
I am not sure about the code versus content for cmap files.
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@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |limburgher@gmail.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |limburgher@gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 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.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org