Bug 724859

I'll review it (and sponsor you as well)

Thanks, and also while I remember rpmlint didn't give a error on the SPEC/SRPM/RPM except missing enchant-dictiionary-not-found en_US, from which I heard installing it on my system will fix that error.

I't almost ok exept what isn't :)

I made two patches (and rebased them all as well):

http://peter.fedorapeople.org/newlisp/

Patch #2 allows us to pass additional Fedora flags (in fact it overrides default newlisp's ones, so, please examine which additional flags are required for normal operation. For your info - I added them in comments above the line with 'make' invocation.

Also I properly claimed ownership on all directories and removed excessive stuff (no need to explicitly claim man-pages as %doc).

Please, take a look at this spec-file:

http://peter.fedorapeople.org/newlisp/newlisp.spec

and make sure that all these commented out gcc flags are not required (or otherwise):

# -pedantic -Wno-strict-aliasing -Wno-long-long

After you confirm that it does work with the current CFLAGS, I'll continue review.

Confirming it does work fine. Also I have added the official man page that got revised in SCM after I submited the patch to one of the developers of the software.

Updated SPEC: http://github.com/ndowens/Fedora-Rpms/raw/master/SPECS/newlisp.spec
Updated SRPM: http://github.com/ndowens/Fedora-Rpms/raw/master/SRPMS/newlisp-10.3.2-2.fc15.src.rpm

REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+ rpmlint is silent

sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/newlisp-*
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS:

+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ 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 (proper value is GPLv3+ ).

+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc.
+ 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.

sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum newlisp-10.3.2.tgz*
73378da1a6c3eb5fd4e9f88969fd0cdef86d24f38f09b8d17d0e7f76b226c88b  newlisp-10.3.2.tgz
73378da1a6c3eb5fd4e9f88969fd0cdef86d24f38f09b8d17d0e7f76b226c88b  newlisp-10.3.2.tgz.1
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: 

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3226119

+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
0 The package DOESN'T have a %clean section, so it won't build cleanly on systems with old rpm (EL-4 and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). Beware.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application.
0 No C/CPP header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so).
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

So the only issue is the "License" tag - please, fix it. This package is

APPROVED.

License field has been updated 
SPEC:
http://raw.github.com/ndowens/Fedora-Rpms/master/SPECS/newlisp.spec

SRPM:
http://github.com/ndowens/Fedora-Rpms/raw/master/SRPMS/newlisp-10.3.2-3.fc15.src.rpm

Ok. good. Now, please tell me your FAS name, and I'll sponsor you.

FAS user name: ndowens

Unblocking FE-NEEDSPONSOR - I just sponsored Nathan.

On, now you need to go through SCM Request procedure as described here:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: newlisp
Short Description: Lisp-like general scripting language
Owners: ndowens
Branches: f15 f16
InitialCC:

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: newlisp
Short Description: Lisp-like general scripting language
Owners: ndowens
Branches: f15
InitialCC:

Summary name is in CamelCase, SCM request is lowercase.  Please rectify. 
Thanks!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: newlisp
Short Description: Lisp-like general scripting language
Owners: ndowens
Branches: f15
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Thanks!

newlisp-10.3.2-3.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/newlisp-10.3.2-3.fc15

newlisp-10.3.2-3.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 testing repository.

newlisp-10.3.2-3.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: newlisp
New Branches: f16
Owners: ndowens
InitialCC: 

Add f16 branch please

Git done (by process-git-requests).