Bug 249122

Summary:	Review Request: cups-appletalk - Appletalk printers via CUPS
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Chris Mohler <cr33dog>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>
Status:	CLOSED NOTABUG	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	fedora-package-review, j, notting
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2008-01-27 05:31:20 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	201449

Description Chris Mohler 2007-07-21 01:08:15 UTC

Spec URL: http://cr33dog.fedorapeople.org/packages/cups-appletalk.spec
SRPM URL: http://cr33dog.fedorapeople.org/packages/cups-appletalk-0.1-1.fc7.src.rpm
Description: This package adds the pap backend to cups, providing the ability to print to Appletalk printers

Comment 1 Jason Tibbitts 2007-11-08 02:25:26 UTC

I suspect mention of appletalk has scared off reviewers, and I haven't hardware
to test this against in over a decade, but it's a trivial package (one shell
script!) so let's take a look.

"Builds" OK on rawhide.

rpmlint says:

  cups-appletalk.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL
More specificity is needed.  The source doesn't include any license statement
but the README file says "gpl v2" so it looks like you should use "GPLv2" as the
License: tag.  However, see below.

  cups-appletalk.noarch: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
Well, you have to put it where cups stores its backends, so this is OK.

Where does the tarball come from?  The URL just seems to point to a copy of the
shell script; is there no actual upstream site?  And what's at the URL seems to
be a newer version, which actually has a license statement that specifies
GPLv2+.  Not sure what's up there, or which to believe.

Comment 2 Jason Tibbitts 2008-01-18 07:43:15 UTC

No reply in over two months; I will close this ticket soon if there is no response.

Comment 3 Jason Tibbitts 2008-01-27 05:31:20 UTC

Still no response; closing.