Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at

Bug 165552

Summary: Review Request: banner - Prints a short string to the console in very large letters
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Oliver Falk <oliver>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Paul Howarth <paul>
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE QA Contact: David Lawrence <dkl>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: fedora-package-review
Target Milestone: ---Flags: j: fedora-cvs+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
URL: http://
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2005-08-22 11:16:57 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 163779, 538076    

Description Oliver Falk 2005-08-10 12:56:51 UTC
Spec Name: banner.spec
SRPM Name: banner-1.3.1-1.src.rpm
Classic-style banner program similar to the one found in Solaris or AIX.
The banner program prints a short string to the console in very large
letters. Also a good example of a very small autoconf-enabled program.
Written in ANSI C.

Comment 1 Oliver Falk 2005-08-10 13:21:46 UTC
Everything seems fine, except the License. Are you sure about 'GPL or Artistic'?
I believe it's only Artistic.

Comment 2 Oliver Falk 2005-08-10 13:23:25 UTC
Shit, wrong bug. Forget Comment #1.

Comment 3 Paul Howarth 2005-08-17 10:45:32 UTC

- rpmlint not clean - see NeedsWork below
- naming of package and spec meets guidelines
- package meets guidelines
- license is GPL, text included in package
- spec file written in English and is legible
- source matches upstream
- package builds ok in FC4 and in mock for devel (i386)
- no locales, libraries, subpackages, pkgconfigs etc. to worry about
- not relocatable
- no directory ownership issues
- no duplicate files
- permissions are fine
- %clean section present and correct
- macro usage is consistent
- code, not content
- no large docs
- docs don't affect runtime


- the Group: tag of "Toys" is not from the list in /usr/share/doc/rpm-*/GROUPS
(this is the cause of the rpmlint not being clean). I suggest
"Amusements/Graphics" or "Applications/Text" (probably the latter) instead.


- I recall using a "banner" program on an old SunOS box, which printed text in
*very* large letters indeed, such that they could be printed on roll or
fold-feed paper and be visible from the other end of a large office. Those were
the days...

- I'd include ChangeLog as %doc

- The last two sentences in %description about it being a good example of a very
small autoconf-enabled program, written in ANSI C, are probably not of interest
to prospective users of the package. Personally I'd drop them.

Comment 4 Paul Howarth 2005-08-17 10:50:51 UTC
*** Bug 165690 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 6 Paul Howarth 2005-08-22 09:55:50 UTC

Comment 7 Oliver Falk 2005-08-22 10:55:28 UTC
cvs imported. What is the correct bugzilla status now? NEXTRELEASE?

Comment 8 Paul Howarth 2005-08-22 11:02:49 UTC

When your builds are done, close the bug NEXTRELEASE.

Comment 9 Christian Iseli 2006-10-18 09:12:25 UTC
Normalize summary field for easy parsing

Comment 10 Oliver Falk 2009-11-18 14:00:36 UTC
Package Change Request
Package Name: banner
New Branches: EL-5
Owners: jima oliver

Comment 11 Kevin Fenzi 2009-11-19 00:45:34 UTC
cvs done.

Comment 12 Oliver Falk 2009-11-19 11:54:36 UTC
Package Change Request
Package Name: banner
New Branches: EL-4
Owners: jima oliver

Sorry. Forgot EL-4 :-(

Comment 13 Jason Tibbitts 2009-11-19 23:15:28 UTC
I can't find any indication of an ack from the current package owner, but I guess this was already branched for EL-5 so an EL-4 branch probably isn't going to hurt anything.  In the future, please follow EPEL policy when requesting EPEL branches of existing packages that you do not own.

CVS done.

Comment 14 Oliver Falk 2009-11-20 08:30:20 UTC
See comment in #537805  :-) The same is true for this...