Bug 443177

Hi, I don't think I should do a formal review yet, but I'll take a look soon if 
no one else does.  (I used to maintain this on Debian a few years ago)

Also, unless I'm mistaken there are still quite a few bugs in html2ps.

Indeed, there is no utf8 support and quite a number of bugs opened in 
debian. I will have a look at time permits, but I don't think it is 
blocking.

(In reply to comment #0)
> SRPM URL: http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/html2ps-1.0-
0.1.b5.fc9.noarch.rpm
That looks like the actual RPM not the SRPM :)

(In reply to comment #1)
> Hi, I don't think I should do a formal review yet
Okay, turns out I'm not as rusty as I thought I was so I'll be happy to review!

(In reply to comment #2)
> Indeed, there is no utf8 support and quite a number of bugs opened in 
> debian. I will have a look at time permits, but I don't think it is 
> blocking.
I agree 100% was just making sure you were aware of it.

Initial look at spec file seems not bad.

(On a side note, could you maybe consider reviewing Bug443301 in return?)

Indeed, I did it wrong, the srpm is now at:
http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/html2ps-1.0-0.1.b5.fc9.src.rpm

I think that the concordance review is under enough eyes, currently. 
Do you want that I have a look at another review?

Sorry for the delays, I'll formalize the review later today but....

At the moment it looks really good! http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=585137 so unless I 
find anything mysteriously wrong with it, it'll be an approved :)

Sorry for the delays (again)

Package Review
==============

Key:
 - = N/A
 x = Check
 ! = Problem
 ? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
 [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.
 [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
     Tested on: F-8/noarch
 [x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPM: html2ps.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libpaper
 [x] Package is not relocatable.
 [x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
 [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     License type: GPLv2+
 [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
 [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
 [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [-] The spec file handles locales properly.
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
 [x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
 [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
 [x] Permissions on files are set properly.
 [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
 [x] Package consistently uses macros.
 [x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
 [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
 [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
 [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
 [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
 [x] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.


=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [x] Latest version is packaged.
 [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
 [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
 [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
     Tested on: devel/noarch (koji)
 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
     Tested on:devel/noarch
 [x] Package functions as described.
 [x] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
 [-] File based requires are sane

================
*** APPROVED ***
================

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: html2ps
Short Description: HTML to PostScript converter
Owners: pertusus
Branches: F-8 EL-5
InitialCC: 
Cvsextras Commits: yes

Thanks for the review!

(In reply to comment #8)
> Thanks for the review!
No problem!

(In reply to comment #7)
> Branches: F-8 EL-5
Don't forget F-9 :)

OOps. Added F-9 

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: html2ps
Short Description: HTML to PostScript converter
Owners: pertusus
Branches: F-8 F-9 EL-5
InitialCC: 
Cvsextras Commits: yes

cvs done. 

html2ps-1.0-0.1.b5.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8

html2ps-1.0-0.1.b5.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9

html2ps-1.0-0.1.b5.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

html2ps-1.0-0.1.b5.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: html2ps
New Branches: el6
Owners: tremble ppisar

Git done (by process-git-requests).