Bug 480860

are you sure you want to submit this? the standard "date" command does everything this tool does, and much much more. info date -> examples for a quick grasp

Usually I like the freedom to choose from several applications with similar functionality but your reason not to go on with this review is quite good.  I don't want to waste your time.  Let's drop this review request.

At the other hand it's a simple package and a simple review.  Maybe a person who is seeking a sponsor would like to review this.

I am sorry , I did not want to imply that there is a problem or something. It's just that I simply find it useless.

I like your idea with leaving this review for someone seeking for sponsorship. Unassigning...

Hello,
This is my informal review. I cannot sponsor you as I'm not an approved
packager. Your package and specfile seems OK for me:

My review:

+ rpmlint output is clean.
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec. There is timespan.spec.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
GPLv2+
+ There is license in separate file in %doc : /usr/share/doc/timespan-2.1/COPYING
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL (md5sum timespan-2.1.tar.gz  c9d545eb5f617b29b3a634d7a0aec39a
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ There isn't duplicate files in the %files listing.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
+ Package doesn't own files or directories already owned by other packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All file names in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
architectures.

+ I did a limited test that the package functions as described, like
'/usr/bin/timespan -l now'
+ Summary and description corresponds package's home.

I don't need a sponsor but thanks for the review.  You should mention this informal review to find a sponsor for yourself.  For more details check out this page [1].  For RH employees is the 'seeking sponsor' procedure a bit different than for Fedora contributors. 

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#Get_a_Fedora_Account

(In reply to comment #5)
> I don't need a sponsor but thanks for the review.  You should mention this
> informal review to find a sponsor for yourself.  For more details check out
> this page [1].  For RH employees is the 'seeking sponsor' procedure a bit
> different than for Fedora contributors. 
> 
> [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#Get_a_Fedora_Account

I think the sponsoring procedure is the same, just the CLA signing part is different.

I think Peter's review was fairly exhaustive and package simple and correct as well. Thank you both!

APPROVED

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: timespan
Short Description: A tool that performs date-based time calculations
Owners: fab
Branches: F-9 F-10
InitialCC:

cvs done.

timespan-2.1-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update timespan'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-1251

timespan-2.1-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing-newkey update timespan'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-1328

Was pushed to stable

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-1328
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-1251