Bug 636947

[!] - The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
    - The spec URL looks like it's not correct, I think it should be either a full URL or in case of a snapshot or similar, a method how to generate it. 

Koji scratch builds (f14 and devel):
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2486519
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2486524

RPMLint output - binaries
libpath_utils.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Filesystem -> File system, File-system, Systematic
libpath_utils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem -> file system, file-system, systematic
libpath_utils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pathnames -> pathname, path names, path-names
libpath_utils-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libpath -> lib path, lib-path, librate
libpath_utils-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) utils -> utile, utilizes, utilize
libpath_utils-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem -> file system, file-system, systematic
libpath_utils-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pathnames -> pathname, path names, path-names
libdhash.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resize -> resile, reside, re size
libdhash-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resize -> resile, reside, re size
libref_array.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) refcounted -> recounted, ref counted, ref-counted
libref_array-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libref -> libre, lib ref, lib-ref
libini_config.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config -> con fig, con-fig, configure
libini_config.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libcollection -> lib collection, lib-collection, collection
libini_config-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libini -> libidinal, libido, Libia
libini_config-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) config -> con fig, con-fig, configure
libini_config-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config -> con fig, con-fig, configure
libini_config-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libcollection -> lib collection, lib-collection, collection

RPMLint output - source RPM:
ding-libs.src: W: invalid-url Source0: ding-libs-0.1.1.tar.gz
 - This was discussed above

The rest looks pretty good:
 [OK] - The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
 [OK] - The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
 [OK] - The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
 [OK] - The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
 [OK] - 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 must be included in %doc.
 [OK] - The spec file must be written in American English.
 [OK] - The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
 [OK] - The package MUST successfully compile and build
 [OK] - All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
      - The two above were tested with koji scratch build
 [OK] - Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
 [OK] - Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries
 [OK] - A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
 [OK] - A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
 [OK] - Each package must consistently use macros.
 [OK] - The package must contain code, or permissable content.
 [OK] - Header files must be in a -devel package.
 [OK] - If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package.
 [OK] - In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
 [OK] - Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
 [OK] - Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
 [OK] - All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
 [OK] - Permissions on files must be set properly.

I think we should also close the separate review bugs and have the few separate packages that already had dist-git done removed.

Fixed the source address. Also, yes. I plan to close the review bugs and follow the dead.package process for the other packages.

Spec URL: http://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/ding-libs.spec
SRPM URL:
http://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/ding-libs-0.1.1-2.fc13.src.rpm

Built in koji (rawhide):
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2486716

Thank you, approved.

Just one thing, which I'm sure you're aware of - this update needs to be coordinated with SSSD update as (for example) libcollection version in ding-libs is 0.6 and sssd currently requires 0.5.0.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: ding-libs
Short Description: "Ding is not Glib" assorted utility libraries
Owners: sgallagh dpal
Branches: f13 f14
InitialCC:

User dpal doesn't seem to be in the packager group?

(In reply to comment #6)
> User dpal doesn't seem to be in the packager group?

Sorry, please move dpal to the InitialCC instead

Git done (by process-git-requests).