Bug 1172732

Few comments:
* even if it's trivial to generate the src.rpm, I recommend providing it.
It enables the use of semi-automated reviewing tools and you'll get your reviews done faster.
* Please provide a copy of the license (not a blocker, but you're advised to do it)

I also took into account the specifics of installer branding and configuration packages.

I hereby approve this package in Fedora Packages Collection since it complies with Fedora
Packaging guidelines. Please submit a SCM request.



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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
     upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
     licenses manually.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/lorax/product/run/install/product,
     /usr/share/lorax/product/run/install,
     /usr/share/lorax/product/run/install/product/pyanaconda,
     /usr/share/lorax/product/run, /usr/share/lorax/product
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners:
     /usr/share/lorax/product/run/install/product,
     /usr/share/lorax/product/run/install, /usr/share/lorax,
     /usr/share/lorax/product/run/install/product/pyanaconda,
     /usr/share/lorax/product/run, /usr/share/lorax/product
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
     /usr/share/lorax/product/usr/share/anaconda(fedora-productimg-
     workstation, fedora-productimg-cloud, fedora-productimg-server),
     /usr/share/lorax/product/usr(fedora-productimg-workstation, fedora-
     productimg-cloud, fedora-productimg-server),
     /usr/share/lorax/product/usr/share(fedora-productimg-workstation, fedora-
     productimg-cloud, fedora-productimg-server),
     /usr/share/lorax/product/usr/share/anaconda/pixmaps(fedora-productimg-
     workstation, fedora-productimg-cloud, fedora-productimg-server)
[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.
[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]: 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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
     Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?)
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python

===== 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[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]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[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).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: fedora-productimg-atomic-22-5.fc22.noarch.rpm
          fedora-productimg-atomic-22-5.fc22.src.rpm
fedora-productimg-atomic.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US img -> mg, imp, i mg
fedora-productimg-atomic.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 22-1 ['22-5.fc22', '22-5']
fedora-productimg-atomic.noarch: W: no-url-tag
fedora-productimg-atomic.noarch: W: no-documentation
fedora-productimg-atomic.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/lorax/product/usr/share/anaconda/pixmaps/sidebar-logo_flavor.png /usr/share/anaconda/pixmaps/cloud/sidebar-logo.png
fedora-productimg-atomic.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/lorax/product/usr/share/anaconda/pixmaps/sidebar-bg.png /usr/share/anaconda/pixmaps/cloud/sidebar-bg.png
fedora-productimg-atomic.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/lorax/product/usr/share/anaconda/pixmaps/topbar-bg.png /usr/share/anaconda/pixmaps/cloud/topbar-bg.png
fedora-productimg-atomic.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US img -> mg, imp, i mg
fedora-productimg-atomic.src: W: no-url-tag
fedora-productimg-atomic.src:21: W: unversioned-explicit-provides lorax-product-atomic
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@zangetsu /]# rpmlint fedora-productimg-atomic
fedora-productimg-atomic.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US img -> mg, imp, i mg
fedora-productimg-atomic.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 22-1 ['22-5.fc22', '22-5']
fedora-productimg-atomic.noarch: W: no-url-tag
fedora-productimg-atomic.noarch: W: no-documentation
fedora-productimg-atomic.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/lorax/product/usr/share/anaconda/pixmaps/sidebar-logo_flavor.png /usr/share/anaconda/pixmaps/cloud/sidebar-logo.png
fedora-productimg-atomic.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/lorax/product/usr/share/anaconda/pixmaps/sidebar-bg.png /usr/share/anaconda/pixmaps/cloud/sidebar-bg.png
fedora-productimg-atomic.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/lorax/product/usr/share/anaconda/pixmaps/topbar-bg.png /usr/share/anaconda/pixmaps/cloud/topbar-bg.png
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@zangetsu /]# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
fedora-productimg-atomic (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
fedora-productimg-atomic:
    fedora-productimg-atomic
    lorax-product-atomic

Thanks for the review!  I'll include the license.

No SCM request found.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: fedora-productimg-atomic
Short Description: Installer branding and configuration for Fedora Atomic
Upstream URL: https://github.com/projectatomic/fedora-productimg-atomic
Owners: walters
Branches: rawhide
InitialCC:

Sorry about that Jon, take two.  See comment #4

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Also, no need to specify rawhide, it's automatic.

csutherl's scratch build of fedora-tomcat-epel?#9661f8da0d7e82b63ef65ebe467e0eb103ae624f for el6-candidate and git://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/fedora-tomcat-epel?#9661f8da0d7e82b63ef65ebe467e0eb103ae624f failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11823023