Bug 249122 - Review Request: cups-appletalk - Appletalk printers via CUPS
Review Request: cups-appletalk - Appletalk printers via CUPS
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
:
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-DEADREVIEW
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-07-20 21:08 EDT by Chris Mohler
Modified: 2008-01-27 00:31 EST (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-01-27 00:31:20 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Chris Mohler 2007-07-20 21:08:15 EDT
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 2007-11-07 21:25:26 EST
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 02:43:15 EST
No reply in over two months; I will close this ticket soon if there is no response.
Comment 3 Jason Tibbitts 2008-01-27 00:31:20 EST
Still no response; closing.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.