Bug 244355

rpmlint complains
E: xapian-core invalid-spec-name xapian.spec
Your spec filename must end with '.spec'. If it's not the case, rename your
file and rebuild your package.

also,
W: xapian-core-devel no-dependency-on xapian-core
W: xapian-core-devel summary-ended-with-dot Files needed for building packages
which use Xapian.
Summary ends with a dot.

AND
W: xapian-core-libs summary-ended-with-dot Xapian search engine libraries.
Summary ends with a dot.

can't find which rpm owns /usr/include/xapian directory

some other SPEC cleanups
1) use buildroot as
BuildRoot:      %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)

2) Not found %{?dist}. Depends whether you like to add disttag though its not
mandatory.

3) Vendor field is not needed.

4) don't add any .la files. Refer
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-2302ec1e1f44202c9cc4bcce24cb711266557ad7

any reasons to use 
[ "%{buildroot}" != "/" ] && rm -rf %{buildroot}
instead only rm -rf %{buildroot}
as suggested at 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-6c809b2e945ca78ae25d040f250be60f73181ef0

I fixed all the comments except:

> can't find which rpm owns /usr/include/xapian directory

It's owned by xapian-devel I think, maybe I'm missing what is the problem exactly.

http://dev.laptop.org/~marco/xapian-core-0.9.10-2.2.svn8397.fc7.src.rpm
http://dev.laptop.org/~marco/xapian-core.spec

rpmlint report just this now:

W: xapian-core-libs no-documentation

I think that's fine, the docs are in xapian-core.

It's certainly appreciated that you're trying to get xapian packages into
fedora, but please package Xapian 1.0.1 rather than what appears to be a rather
old SVN snapshot (from the SVN revision in the version string).

1.0.1 is more stable, and has an API and ABI that should remain compatible for
some time, which is better for users and for yourself as package maintainer. 
Users reporting problems with packages of old SVN snapshots won't get much
sympathy upstream - they'll just be directed to the unofficial RPMs.

So do yourself, your users, and upstream a favour and package the latest
released version!

Sure, sounds good, I didn't know there was a release, I'll update the source.

Updated the source:

http://dev.laptop.org/~marco/xapian-core-1.0.1-1.src.rpm
http://dev.laptop.org/~marco/xapian-core.spec

Change Souce0 to http://www.oligarchy.co.uk/xapian/1.0.1/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

Done.

http://dev.laptop.org/~marco/xapian-core-1.0.1-1.src.rpm
http://dev.laptop.org/~marco/xapian-core.spec

Review:
+ package builds in mock (F7 i386).
+ rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPMs.
+ source files match upstream.
d9a88bf3cac06e9803d9d6080552ceeb  xapian-core-1.0.1.tar.gz
+ package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
+ specfile is properly named, is cleanly written
+ Spec file is written in American English.
+ Spec file is legible.
- dist tag is NOT present.
+ build root is correct.
+ license is open source-compatible.
+ License text is included in package.
+ %doc is small so no need of -doc subpackage.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ %clean is present.
+ package installed properly.
+ Macro use appears rather consistent.
+ Package contains code, not content.
+ no static libraries.
+ no .pc files are present.
+ -devel, -libs subpackage exists.
+ no .la files.
+ no translations available.
+ Does owns the directories it creates.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ scriptlets used.
+ xapian-core-devel Requires: /bin/sh libxapian.so.15 xapian-core = 1.0.1
xapian-core-libs = 1.0.1
+ xapian-core-libs Provides: libxapian.so.15
+ xapian-core-libs Requires: libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) libgcc_s.so.1
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libm.so.6 libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libstdc++.so.6
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)
libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4) libxapian.so.15 libz.so.1 rtld(GNU_HASH)
+ Not a GUI app.

APPROVED.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: xapian-core
Short Description: The Xapian Probabilistic Information Retrieval Library
Owners: mpg
Branches: OLPC-2
InitialCC: mpg

CVS done.

Well, actually not.  mpg isn't in the account system and so can't
actually own packages.  So something's screwed up here: either this package
should have blocked FE-NEEDSPONSOR or some other address should be used as the
owner of this package.

Please let me know which is correct and if necessary I'll fix up the entries. 
As it is now the package exists but mpg won't be authorized to do
anything with it.

Ok, I need a sponsor.

Please go ahead and apply for membership in the cvsextras group and I'll take
care of it.

I note that you already seem to be in the account system (ID "mpg") but under a
different email address, which will potentially cause all sorts of wonderful
problems.

Everything's taken care of now.

Closing as RAWHIDE for lack of a better resolution.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: xapian-core
New Branches: F-7
Updated Fedora Owners: mpg, adel.gadllah

cvs done.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: xapian-core
New Branches: EL-6
Owners: pbrobinson sdz

cvs done.