Bug 195764

rpmbuild -v -ba tcpick.spec (on FC4)
error: Failed build dependencies:
        libpcap-devel is needed by tcpick-0.2.1-8.i386

found libpcap-devel-0.9.3-2.i686.rpm on rpm.pbone.net which trigger
a huge chain of dependency, obviously this is not the way to go.

Where can I find libpcap-devel within extra devel tree?
(Bug 193189 say "fixed in CVS")

libpcap-devel is currently only in Rawhide (and yes it's fixed in Core CVS):
core/development/i386/os/Fedora/RPMS/libpcap-devel-0.9.4-7.i386.rpm

An alternative would be just to require /usr/include/pcap.h which is independent 
of the libpcap-devel split in Rawhide - but I see, what the problem is...

versions of FC prior to developmnet/FC6  you have to BuildRequires: libpcap  
beacuse in all versions prior.  the libpcap package had the development files 
included.  to see a sample  of how to handle  this look at the snort spec file 

Applied, thanks for pointing me to this example.

Fedora packaging guidelines suggest against using %makeinstall unless absolutely
necessary. Using 'make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install' is preferred (and as far
as I can see, works just fine for this package). I'll do some more formal review
tonight...

You're right of course, but it works for about 2 years now, but I also could
use 4 install lines for the four files instead of moving the files after the
'%makeinstall' or 'make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install' when this makes you 
happy... ;-)

Just parroting from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines on the %makeinstall bit. :)

Also, how about using '%configure --bindir=%{_sbindir}' instead of using an extra line to move the file? 
Not a requirement, but results in at least one less line in the spec.

Now for the rest of the review:

* package meets naming and packaging guidelines -- okay
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently -- okay
* dist tag is present -- okay
* build root is correct -- okay
      %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* license field matches the actual license -- GPL, okay
* license is open source-compatible and license text included in package -- okay
* source files match upstream -- okay
      bb94f2f9ea81aeb645619fbe9b3b9a29  tcpick-0.2.1.tar.gz
* latest version is being packaged -- 0.2.1, okay
* BuildRequires are proper -- okay
* package builds in mock -- okay (fedora development x86_64)
* rpmlint is silent -- okay
* final provides and requires are sane -- okay
    tcpick-0.2.1-8.fc6.x86_64.rpm
    tcpick = 0.2.1-8.fc6
    =
    libpcap.so.0.9.4()(64bit)  

* no shared libraries are present -- okay
* package is not relocatable -- okay
* owns the directories it creates -- okay
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't -- okay
* no duplicates in %files -- okay
* file permissions are appropriate -- okay
* %clean is present -- okay
* %check is present and all tests pass -- n/a
        (include the summary from the test suite, if any)
* no scriptlets present -- okay
* code, not content -- okay
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary -- okay
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package -- okay
* no headers -- okay
* no pkgconfig files -- okay
* no libtool .la droppings -- okay
* not a GUI app -- okay
* not a web app -- okay

Only thing I see that needs to be altered to comply with the packaging guidelines is the use of %
makeinstall.

Okay these two minor matters have been applied...

Excellent, package APPROVED.

11312 (tcpick): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded.
11313 (tcpick): Build on target fedora-5-extras succeeded.
11314 (tcpick): Build on target fedora-4-extras succeeded.