Bug 1301253

This is not an official review, and this does not effect the status of the review request.
* It looks like a period slipped into the packages Summary.
* I don't believe that Amusements/Games" is a valid group.
* "make %{?_smp_mflags}" can be replaced with "%make_build".
* You don't need to specify the packager.
* You probably want the install and ln command to be in the "%install" section.
* You might want to consider including a change log at the end of your file.

(In reply to Brandon Thomas from comment #1)

Thanks for the review!

> * I don't believe that Amusements/Games" is a valid group.
Amusements/Games is a valid group. Try "cat /usr/share/doc/rpm/GROUPS"

> * "make %{?_smp_mflags}" can be replaced with "%make_build".
That was in the vim .spec template, I will fix it in an update.

> * You probably want the install and ln command to be in the "%install"
See above.

You seems to not be in packager group yet, so I added the required "blocks" dependency to this bug report. I hope some packager sponsor reach you. To the package:

The License value is not valid one. See <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing> for the list of available identifiers.

The program requires C compiler to build. You should build-requires gcc. See <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B>.

The spec file invokes make command, so it should build-require it.

The LICENSE file must be packaged using %license macro. See <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines>.

This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry
it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software
into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the
NEEDINFO flag.

You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version
available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase
chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you
need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned
and will be closed.
Thank you for your patience.

This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry
it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software
into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the
NEEDINFO flag.

You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version
available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase
chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you
need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned
and will be closed.
Thank you for your patience.

@awd123ps
Could you explain what are you going to do with this package review?
Do you intend to complete it?
If not, the ticket should be closed.
If yes, please address feedback given to you.
You most probably also need to re-check the specfile against Fedora packaging guidelines,
they change in time and the latest spec is already many years old.

This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.