Bug 1397643

I suggest to drop all the Obsoletes lines:
  Obsoletes: udapl < 1.3
  Obsoletes: udapl-devel < 1.3
  Obsoletes: dapl-devel-static < 2.0.24
They are pointless in Fedora where the obsoleted packages were never included. And even if we later inherit this dapl.spec into RHEL, we do not need these Obsoletes anymore, because RHEL 6.0 already had a new enough version of dapl, i.e. dapl-2.0.25. No need to try to support upgrades from earlier versions.

Before the ExcludeArch line:
  ExcludeArch: s390, armv7hl
maybe add a comment:
  # Platforms missing in dapl/udapl/linux/dapl_osd.h

Instead of using chrpath, which the Fedora packaging guidelines describe as "a last resort", please switch to the recommended way of removing rpath
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Removing_Rpath) - do this after %configure:
  sed -i 's|^hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=.*|hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=""|g' libtool
  sed -i 's|^runpath_var=LD_RUN_PATH|runpath_var=DIE_RPATH_DIE|g' libtool

Add BuildRequires for the C compiler.
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildRequires_and_Requires)

(In reply to Michal Schmidt from comment #1)
> I suggest to drop all the Obsoletes lines:
Removed.

> 
> Before the ExcludeArch line:
>   ExcludeArch: s390, armv7hl
> maybe add a comment:
>   # Platforms missing in dapl/udapl/linux/dapl_osd.h
Added comment as required.

>   sed -i 's|^hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=.*|hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=""|g'
> libtool
>   sed -i 's|^runpath_var=LD_RUN_PATH|runpath_var=DIE_RPATH_DIE|g' libtool
Replaced chrpath with this.

> Add BuildRequires for the C compiler.
Fixed.

Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/honli/.419dc6a07891d4da7bc03168d5613fcz/dapl.spec

SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/honli/.419dc6a07891d4da7bc03168d5613fcz/dapl-2.1.9-2.fc26.src.rpm
Please review updated SPEC and SRPM files.

Thanks

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

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


Issues:
=======
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/rdma
>>>  I would just drop the "--sysconfdir=/etc/rdma" configure option.
     This would result in having the config file /etc/dat.conf.
     It's the upstream default and it's where the config file is in Debian
     (libdapl2) and openSUSE (dapl). It's a change from RHEL, but we can deal
     with it there.

>>>  "--enable-ext-type=ib" is the default option - no need to pass it to
     configure.

>>>  "-fno-strict-aliasing" may be unnecessary. Doug added it in 2009, but it's
     not clear why. Other distros do not add the option.
     The build with -Wall -O2 (which together imply -Wstrict-aliasing) does not
     trigger any aliasing warnings.

>>>  In %description please use "RDMA" spelling consistently. There is one
     occurrence of lower-case "rdma".
     In "libdat and libdapl provides" use singular form "provide".
     In %description of utils use plural "APIs", not possessive "API's".

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

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

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: "GPL (v2 or later)", "FSF Unlimited", "Unknown or generated",
     "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "FSF Unlimited GPL (v2 or later)", "BSD (3
     clause)", "FSF All Permissive". 308 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /var/tmp/1397643-dapl/licensecheck.txt
>>>  Note: GPLv2+ is just libtool, whose license gives an additional permission
     to distribute under the terms of the program itself it is bundled with. OK.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/rdma
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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.
[x]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
>>>  Arch exclusion justified.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 440320 bytes in 4 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
>>>  Dir ownership issue noted above.
[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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if
     present.
     Note: Package has .a files: dapl-static.
[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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in dapl-
     static , dapl-debuginfo
 >>> dapl-static has a correct dep on dapl-devel.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[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 debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: dapl-2.1.9-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm
          dapl-devel-2.1.9-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm
          dapl-static-2.1.9-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm
          dapl-utils-2.1.9-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm
          dapl-debuginfo-2.1.9-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm
          dapl-2.1.9-2.fc24.src.rpm
dapl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libdat -> libation
dapl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace -> user space, user-space, users pace
dapl.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libdaploscm.so.2.0.0 exit.5
dapl.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libdaploucm.so.2.0.0 exit.5
dapl.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libdaplofa.so.2.0.0 exit.5
>>>  dapl_os_panic() is implemented with exit(1). Maybe it could be replaced with asserts.
     It's something we can deal with upstream, not to be resolved in package review.
dapl.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man5/dat.conf.5.gz 28: normal or special character expected (got a space)
dapl.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man5/dat.conf.5.gz 49: normal or special character expected (got a space)
dapl.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man5/dat.conf.5.gz 71: normal or special character expected (got a space)
>>>  Looks like it does not like the "\br" lines. Not needed to solve this during review.
dapl.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/dapl/LICENSE3.txt
>>>  Just another thing to fix upstream.
dapl-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libdat -> libation
dapl-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libdapl -> libidinal
dapl-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libdat -> libation
dapl-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libdapl -> libidinal
dapl-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
dapl-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
dapl-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libdat -> libation
dapl-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libdapl -> libidinal
dapl-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libdat -> libation
dapl-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libdapl -> libidinal
dapl-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation
dapl-utils.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/dapltest.1.gz 1: warning: macro `"' not defined
dapl-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dtestcm
dapl-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dtestx
dapl-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dtestsrq
dapl.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libdat -> libation
dapl.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace -> user space, user-space, users pace
dapl.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rdma -> dram, rd ma, rd-ma
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 26 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: dapl-debuginfo-2.1.9-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
dapl-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libdat -> libation
dapl-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libdapl -> libidinal
dapl-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libdat -> libation
dapl-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libdapl -> libidinal
dapl-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
dapl-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
dapl-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libdat -> libation
dapl-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libdapl -> libidinal
dapl-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libdat -> libation
dapl-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libdapl -> libidinal
dapl-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation
dapl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libdat -> libation
dapl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace -> user space, user-space, users pace
dapl.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libdaploscm.so.2.0.0 dats_get_ia_handle
dapl.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libdaploscm.so.2.0.0 dat_registry_add_provider
dapl.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libdaploscm.so.2.0.0 dat_registry_remove_provider
dapl.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libdaploscm.so.2.0.0 exit.5
dapl.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libdaplofa.so.2.0.0 dats_get_ia_handle
dapl.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libdaplofa.so.2.0.0 dat_registry_add_provider
dapl.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libdaplofa.so.2.0.0 dat_registry_remove_provider
dapl.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libdaplofa.so.2.0.0 exit.5
dapl.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libdaploucm.so.2.0.0 dats_get_ia_handle
dapl.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libdaploucm.so.2.0.0 dat_registry_add_provider
dapl.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libdaploucm.so.2.0.0 dat_registry_remove_provider
dapl.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libdaploucm.so.2.0.0 exit.5
dapl.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man5/dat.conf.5.gz 28: normal or special character expected (got a space)
dapl.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man5/dat.conf.5.gz 49: normal or special character expected (got a space)
dapl.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man5/dat.conf.5.gz 71: normal or special character expected (got a space)
dapl.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/dapl/LICENSE3.txt
dapl-utils.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/dapltest.1.gz 1: warning: macro `"' not defined
dapl-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dtestsrq
dapl-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dtestcm
dapl-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dtestx
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 32 warnings.



Requires
--------
dapl-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

dapl-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    dapl(x86-64)
    libdaplofa.so.2()(64bit)
    libdaploscm.so.2()(64bit)
    libdaploucm.so.2()(64bit)
    libdat2.so.2()(64bit)

dapl-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    dapl-devel(x86-64)

dapl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /sbin/ldconfig
    config(dapl)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libdl.so.2()(64bit)
    libibverbs.so.1()(64bit)
    libibverbs.so.1(IBVERBS_1.0)(64bit)
    libibverbs.so.1(IBVERBS_1.1)(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    librdmacm.so.1()(64bit)
    librdmacm.so.1(RDMACM_1.0)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

dapl-utils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    dapl(x86-64)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libdat2.so.2()(64bit)
    libdat2.so.2(DAT_2.0)(64bit)
    libdl.so.2()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
dapl-debuginfo:
    dapl-debuginfo
    dapl-debuginfo(x86-64)

dapl-devel:
    dapl-devel
    dapl-devel(x86-64)

dapl-static:
    dapl-static
    dapl-static(x86-64)

dapl:
    config(dapl)
    dapl
    dapl(x86-64)
    libdaplofa.so.2()(64bit)
    libdaplofa.so.2(DAPL_CMA_2.0)(64bit)
    libdaploscm.so.2()(64bit)
    libdaploscm.so.2(DAPL_SCM_2.0)(64bit)
    libdaploucm.so.2()(64bit)
    libdaploucm.so.2(DAPL_OCM_2.0)(64bit)
    libdat2.so.2()(64bit)
    libdat2.so.2(DAT_2.0)(64bit)

dapl-utils:
    dapl-utils
    dapl-utils(x86-64)



Source checksums
----------------
https://www.openfabrics.org/downloads/dapl/dapl-2.1.9.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 40982b43c5e2f1d5b007add9917bc461fdffb95bd52f589de95b15aa59a9d0b6
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 40982b43c5e2f1d5b007add9917bc461fdffb95bd52f589de95b15aa59a9d0b6


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1397643
Buildroot used: fedora-24-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

(In reply to Michal Schmidt from comment #3)
> Issues:
> =======
> [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>      Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/rdma
> >>>  I would just drop the "--sysconfdir=/etc/rdma" configure option.

I suggest to keep this, as RDMA user-space packages install conf into /etc/rdma. RHEL (and CENTOS) also use /etc/rdma as conf directory for RDMA packages. It is more user friendly to keep this. Install conf files in different directories will confuse Redhat users.

> 
> >>>  "--enable-ext-type=ib" is the default option - no need to pass it to
>      configure.

It is harmless. Anyway I will delete this.

> 
> >>>  "-fno-strict-aliasing" may be unnecessary. Doug added it in 2009, but it's
>      not clear why. Other distros do not add the option.
>      The build with -Wall -O2 (which together imply -Wstrict-aliasing) does

Confirmed "-fno-strict-aliasing" is no longer needed. Will remove it.

> 
> >>>  In %description please use "RDMA" spelling consistently. There is one
>      occurrence of lower-case "rdma".

sed -e 's/and rdma write with/and RDMA write with/' -i dapl.spec

>      In "libdat and libdapl provides" use singular form "provide".

sed -e 's/libdat and libdapl provides/libdat and libdapl provide/' -i dapl.spec

>      In %description of utils use plural "APIs", not possessive "API's".

sed -e "s/DAT 2.0 APIs/DAT 2.0 API's/" -i dapl.spec


>  [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>       Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/rdma
> ...
>  [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
>  >>>  Dir ownership issue noted above.

dapl will co-own the /etc/rdma directory.


 review]$ diff -Nurp f26-v2/dapl.spec f26-v4/dapl.spec 
--- f26-v2/dapl.spec	2016-11-25 18:31:28.473837404 -0500
+++ f26-v4/dapl.spec	2016-11-28 21:45:34.392816584 -0500
@@ -14,9 +14,9 @@ BuildRequires: gcc
 # Platforms missing in dapl/udapl/linux/dapl_osd.h
 ExcludeArch: s390, armv7hl
 %description
-Along with the RDMA kernel drivers, libdat and libdapl provides
-a userspace RDMA API that supports DAT 2.0 specification and IB
-transport extensions for atomic operations and rdma write with
+Along with the RDMA kernel drivers, libdat and libdapl provide
+a user-space RDMA API that supports DAT 2.0 specification and IB
+transport extensions for atomic operations and RDMA write with
 immediate data.
 
 %package devel
@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ Useful test suites to validate the dapl
 find . -type f -iname '*.[ch]' -exec chmod a-x '{}' ';'
 
 %build
-%configure CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -fno-strict-aliasing" --enable-ext-type=ib --sysconfdir=/etc/rdma
+%configure --sysconfdir=/etc/rdma
 sed -i 's|^hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=.*|hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=""|g' libtool
 sed -i 's|^runpath_var=LD_RUN_PATH|runpath_var=DIE_RPATH_DIE|g' libtool
 make %{?_smp_mflags} V=1
@@ -59,6 +59,7 @@ rm -f %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/*.la
 %{_libdir}/*.so.*
 %{_mandir}/man5/*
 %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/rdma/dat.conf
+%dir %{_sysconfdir}/rdma
 %doc AUTHORS README ChangeLog README.mcm
 %license COPYING LICENSE.txt LICENSE2.txt LICENSE3.txt
 
@@ -236,4 +237,4 @@ rm -f %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/*.la
 - OFED 1.3-alpha, co-exist with DAT 1.2 library package.  
 
 * Wed Mar 7 2007 Arlin Davis <ardavis.com> - 2.0.0.pre
-- Initial release of DAT 2.0 APIs, includes IB extensions 
+- Initial release of DAT 2.0 API's, includes IB extensions 


Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/honli/.419dc6a07891d4da7bc03168d5613fcz/dapl.spec

SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/honli/.419dc6a07891d4da7bc03168d5613fcz/dapl-2.1.9-2.fc26.src.rpm
Please review updated SPEC and SRPM files.

>  [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
>  >>>  Dir ownership issue noted above.

dapl will co-own the /etc/rdma directory.


Don't make dapl co-own the directory.  Just make dapl Require: the rdma package.  It really should do that anyway, and it will pull in the ownership properly.

(In reply to Doug Ledford from comment #5)
> >  [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
> >  >>>  Dir ownership issue noted above.
> 
> dapl will co-own the /etc/rdma directory.
> 
> 
> Don't make dapl co-own the directory.  Just make dapl Require: the rdma
> package.  It really should do that anyway, and it will pull in the ownership
> properly.

Fixed as required.

Please review updated SPEC and SRPM files:
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/honli/.419dc6a07891d4da7bc03168d5613fcz/dapl.spec

SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/honli/.419dc6a07891d4da7bc03168d5613fcz/dapl-2.1.9-3.fc26.src.rpm

(In reply to Honggang LI from comment #4)
> (In reply to Michal Schmidt from comment #3)
> >      In %description of utils use plural "APIs", not possessive "API's".
> 
> sed -e "s/DAT 2.0 APIs/DAT 2.0 API's/" -i dapl.spec

No, that's the opposite of what I meant.

That's a minor thing that can be fixed before importing. Everything else looks good now. Setting fedora-review+. Thanks!

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/dapl

(In reply to Michal Schmidt from comment #8)
> (In reply to Honggang LI from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Michal Schmidt from comment #3)
> > >      In %description of utils use plural "APIs", not possessive "API's".
> > 
> > sed -e "s/DAT 2.0 APIs/DAT 2.0 API's/" -i dapl.spec
> 
> No, that's the opposite of what I meant.
> 
> That's a minor thing that can be fixed before importing. Everything else
> looks good now. Setting fedora-review+. Thanks!

Fixed and dapl had been built with 'fedpkg build'.

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16700764