Bug 237705

I'll take a look, although I can't test a build in mock sorry.

Package name:             OK (xclip)
License:                  OK (GPL)
Spec Legible:             OK (en_US)
md5sum matches:           OK (a90bde3fb0da6aad3a6042c4867245c6)
rpmlint clean:            OK
Builds correctly:         OK (i386)
Spec has %clean:          OK
Macro use consistant:     OK
Contains code/content:    OK
-doc subpackage:          NA
-devel subpackage:        NA
-static subpackage:       NA
pkgconfig depend:         NA
Contains %doc:            OK (COPYING README)
Library suffix:           NA
No .la files:             NA
Use desktop-file-install: NA
No duplicate ownerships:  OK
rm -rf %{buildroot}:      OK
RPM uses valid UTF-8:     OK
%defattr is set:          OK
No duplicate %files:      OK
Not relocatable:          OK
Calls ldconfig:           NA
Supports Locales:         NA
BR's are correct:         OK

Everything else seems fine, but I could not test in mock.

None the less:  APPROVED

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

Key:
 - = N/A
 x = Check
 ! = Problem
 ? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
 [x] Rpmlint output: empty on source, binary, debug rpm
 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
 [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.
 [x] Package meets the  Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meet other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     License type:GPL
 [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] Spec file is written in American English.
 [x] Spec file for the package is legible.
 [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
     SHA1SUM of package    : 2b20daab0523a2b4b2cab1f24887481556eadb8b
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
     Tested on: devel/x86_64
 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch, OR:
     Arches excluded: -
     Why: -
 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [-] The spec file handles locales properly.
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
 [-] Package is not relocatable.
 [x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
 [-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
 [x] Permissions on files are set properly.
 [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
 [x] Package consistently uses macros.
 [x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
 [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
 [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
 [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
 [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
 [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [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] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
     Tested on:devel/x86_64
 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
     Tested on:devel/x86_64
 [x] Package functions as described.
 [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
 [-] File based requires are sane.
 [x] Latest version is packaged.

=== Issues ===
1. SMP_flags are not taken into account

Tom, please update the spec to honor SMP flags before uploading to CVS.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: xclip
Short Description: Command line clipboard grabber
Owners: tcallawa
Branches: FC-5 FC-6

Built, thanks.