- This is 404 for me 

Source0:        https://download3.ebz.epson.net/dsc/f/03/00/06/66/06/cbdec7133feb477f38ebd45337be3a8fb1416c0c/epson-inkjet-printer-escpr2-%{version}-%{lsb}.src.rpm


I'm assuming it's because it was updated to 1.1.24 on October 27th.

Source0:        https://download3.ebz.epson.net/dsc/f/03/00/12/09/63/b7d2bb6a97c9ad99a96ebc68f8abcb1254888e94/epson-inkjet-printer-escpr2-1.1.24-1lsb3.2.src.rpm


 - Not needed:

Group:          Applications/System

 - 

RPM build errors:
error: Empty %files file /builddir/build/BUILD/epson-inkjet-printer-escpr2-1.1.24/debugsourcefiles.list
    Empty %files file /builddir/build/BUILD/epson-inkjet-printer-escpr2-1.1.24/debugsourcefiles.list

shouldn't this be a noarch package?

Yes, the upstream download links break down whenever they do a new release. Group removed, and package tagged as noarch.

Spec URL: https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/epson-inkjet-printer-escpr2.spec
SRPM URL: https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/epson-inkjet-printer-escpr2-1.1.24-1.1lsb3.2.fc32.src.rpm

Package approved.



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

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[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.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License,
     Version 2.1", "FSF All Permissive License", "GNU General Public
     License v2.0 or later", "[generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License
     (with Retention) [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0
     or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or
     later", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "Expat License
     [generated file]", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "FSF
     Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public License, Version
     2", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention)". 182 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/epson-inkjet-printer-escpr2/review-epson-
     inkjet-printer-escpr2/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/ppd/Epson(epson-
     inkjet-printer-escpr), /usr/share/ppd/Epson/epson-inkjet-printer-
     escpr(epson-inkjet-printer-escpr)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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 %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: epson-inkjet-printer-escpr2-1.1.24-1.1lsb3.2.fc34.noarch.rpm
          epson-inkjet-printer-escpr2-1.1.24-1.1lsb3.2.fc34.src.rpm
epson-inkjet-printer-escpr2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US escpr -> escape
epson-inkjet-printer-escpr2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US escpr -> escape
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epson-inkjet-printer-escpr2

FEDORA-2020-65e3f7bc6a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-65e3f7bc6a

FEDORA-2020-4d0ceb5f4e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-4d0ceb5f4e

FEDORA-2020-4d0ceb5f4e has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-4d0ceb5f4e \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-4d0ceb5f4e

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2020-65e3f7bc6a has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-65e3f7bc6a \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-65e3f7bc6a

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2020-2ea6267123 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-2ea6267123 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-2ea6267123

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2020-65e3f7bc6a has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2020-2ea6267123 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2020-4d0ceb5f4e has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.