Bug 712017

formal review is here, see the notes explaining OK* and BAD statuses below:

OK      source files match upstream:
            95e3414edaf08373d32dae3ea6ff9e3b26db77ba  libreport-2.0.2.tar.gz
OK      package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
BAD     specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
OK      dist tag is present.
BAD     license field matches the actual license.
OK      license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
OK      latest version is being packaged.
OK      BuildRequires are proper.
OK      compiler flags are appropriate.
OK      %clean is present.
OK      package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64).
OK      debuginfo package looks complete.
OK*     rpmlint is silent.
OK      final provides and requires look sane.
N/A     %check is present and all tests pass.
OK      shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths, scriptlets exist
BAD     owns the directories it creates.
BAD     doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
OK      no duplicates in %files.
OK      file permissions are appropriate.
OK      correct scriptlets present.
OK      code, not content.
OK      documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
OK      %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
OK      headers in -devel
OK      pkgconfig files in -devel
OK      no libtool .la droppings.
OK*     a GUI app.

- you mix $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} and %{buildroot}
- 2 files are licensed under GPLv2-only (libreport.h and binhex.c), licensing header completely missing in some
- rpmlint warns about spelling (false positives), missing docs and man page (would be nice to have)
- %{includedir}/libreport is not owned
- should it really own the /etc/abrt directory?
- is GUI app, but not intended to be run by user, correct?

(In reply to comment #1)
> formal review is here, see the notes explaining OK* and BAD statuses below:
> 
> OK      source files match upstream:
>             95e3414edaf08373d32dae3ea6ff9e3b26db77ba  libreport-2.0.2.tar.gz
> OK      package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
> BAD     specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros
> consistently.
> OK      dist tag is present.
> BAD     license field matches the actual license.
> OK      license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
> OK      latest version is being packaged.
> OK      BuildRequires are proper.
> OK      compiler flags are appropriate.
> OK      %clean is present.
> OK      package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64).
> OK      debuginfo package looks complete.
> OK*     rpmlint is silent.
> OK      final provides and requires look sane.
> N/A     %check is present and all tests pass.
> OK      shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths,
> scriptlets exist
> BAD     owns the directories it creates.
> BAD     doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
> OK      no duplicates in %files.
> OK      file permissions are appropriate.
> OK      correct scriptlets present.
> OK      code, not content.
> OK      documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
> OK      %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
> OK      headers in -devel
> OK      pkgconfig files in -devel
> OK      no libtool .la droppings.
> OK*     a GUI app.
> 

> - you mix $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} and %{buildroot}
- fixed
> - 2 files are licensed under GPLv2-only (libreport.h and binhex.c), licensing
> header completely missing in some
- fixed
> - rpmlint warns about spelling (false positives), missing docs and man page
> (would be nice to have)
- coming soon :)
> - %{includedir}/libreport is not owned
- fixed
> - should it really own the /etc/abrt directory?
- yes, it's considered a part of ABRT and it shares some config files
> - is GUI app, but not intended to be run by user, correct?
- exactly

- I reuploaded spec, srpm and sources, please re-check

All issues are fixed now, package is APPROVED

source archive is updated, but version not bumped, new sha1sum is
886fbf4e2d977865c644e257688ecad1c8c7f782  libreport-2.0.2.tar.gz

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: libreport
Short Description: Generic library for reporting various problems to the different ticketing systems
Owners: dvlasenk npajkovs mtoman mlichvar kklic jmoskovc
Branches: f15
InitialCC:

WARNING: "dvlasenk" is not a valid FAS account. 

Can you correct, please, and then re-set the cvs flag?

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: libreport
Short Description: Generic library for reporting various problems to the
different ticketing systems
Owners: vda npajkovs mtoman mlichvar kklic jmoskovc
Branches: f15
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

libreport-2.0.3-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libreport-2.0.3-1.fc15

libreport-2.0.3-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 testing repository.

libreport-2.0.3-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.