Bug 204955

rpmlint says:
E: digikamimageplugins-doc configure-without-libdir-spec
W: digikamimageplugins-doc mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs
W: digikamimageplugins-doc patch-not-applied Patch1:
digikamimageplugins-doc-0.8.2-noarch.patch

+ Build fine on x86_64
+ BuildRoot is correct
+ Source URL is correct
+ License used is GFDL
+ License file README is included
+ MD5 sum on tarball match upstream tarball
9735437a0f385e28c2179ea25965d78f  digikamimageplugins-doc-0.8.2-r1.tar.bz2

This is a bit of an odd package, since it's noarch but has a configure script. 
It builds fine, though.  rpmlint says:

E: digikamimageplugins-doc configure-without-libdir-spec
  OK, it's complaining about the string "./configure" in a comment.  Jeez.

W: digikamimageplugins-doc mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 51, tab:
line 2)
  Completely bogus.

W: digikamimageplugins-doc patch-not-applied Patch1:
digikamimageplugins-doc-0.8.2-noarch.patch
  Indeed, the patch is not applied.  I suppose you should choose which method
you want to use to trick configure into not blowing up on a noarch build and
elide the rest.

W: digikamimageplugins-doc dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/doc/HTML/pt_BR/digikamimageplugins/common ../common
  A bunch of these, all of which are normal for KDE applications.

I can't run the full review because I can't get the upstream source.  In fact, I
can't even find a link to it on the upstream web site.  I can't tell if the link
in the spec is invalid or if it's just sourcefudge being useless as usual.

Did you intend to leave out the dist tag?

? source files match upstream.
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
X dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
? latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* rpmlint has bogus or ignorable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   digikamimageplugins-doc = 0.8.2-1
  =
   digikamimageplugins = 0.8.2
* %check is not present; it's kind of tough to test documentation.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* documentation is exempted from the "code, not content" rule.

> I can't run the full review because I can't get the upstream source. 

Grr... this *used* to work, 
http://dl.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}-r1.tar.bz2
but now, it appears, one must prepend a mirror, so use (something like):
http://osdn.dl.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}-r1.tar.bz2

Nevermind, looks like I biffed the Source tag altogether...
Lemme go find one that actually works...

Spec URL:
http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/digikamimageplugins-doc.spec
SRPM URL:
http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/digikamimageplugins-doc-0.8.2-2.src.rpm

%changelog
* Mon Oct 02 2006 Rex Dieter <rexdieter[AT]users.sf.net> 0.8.2-2
- Release: use %%{?dist}
- Source: include URL that actually works

OK, this one is much better.  The source matches:
  9735437a0f385e28c2179ea25965d78f  digikamimageplugins-doc-0.8.2-r1.tar.bz2
and the dist tag is there.

APPROVED

Importing, thanks for the review.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: digikamimageplugins-doc
Updated Fedora Owners: mgarski

Is the intention to add a comaintainer or a change of package ownership?
Please clarify and set fedora-cvs to '?' again.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: digikamimageplugins-doc
Updated Fedora Cc: mgarski

+comaintainer.