Bug 754123

You need.

1. remove

BuildRoot:  %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag


2. remove

%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean


3. remove

%defattr(-,root,root,-)

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions

That is unless we want to support EL5 in which case I have to request the EL5 branch for python-straight-plugin (the other dependencies are ok)

In that case you will need a python macro

%if 0%{?rhel} <= 5
%{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")}
%endif


https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python#Macros

We decided not to support EL5, but EL6 still needs defattr macros. I've removed the rest.

Spec URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/fedora-review.spec
SRPM URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/fedora-review-0.1.0-2.fc16.src.rpm

Actually scratch that, reuploaded

I will review this package

I will review this package

Package Review
==============

Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated



==== Generic ====
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[-]: MUST Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).(EPEL6 & Fedora < 13)
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
        Missing defattr(....) in %files section
[-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) and the beginning of %install. (EPEL5)
[x]: MUST 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 is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
        
        rpmlint fedora-review-0.1.0-2.fc17.src.rpm
        ================================================================================
        fedora-review.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugins -> plug ins, plug-ins, plugging
        1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
        ================================================================================
        
        rpmlint fedora-review-0.1.0-2.fc17.noarch.rpm
        ================================================================================
        1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
        ================================================================================
        
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.
        /home/leigh/Desktop/754123/fedora-review-0.1.0.tar.gz :
          MD5SUM this package     : f86399984c95795b4ee8efd7c3d1ec08
          MD5SUM upstream package : f86399984c95795b4ee8efd7c3d1ec08
        
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[ ]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[-]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[?]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.

Issues: None

        
        rpmlint fedora-review-0.1.0-2.fc17.src.rpm
        ================================================================================
        fedora-review.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugins -> plug ins, plug-ins, plugging
        1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
        ================================================================================
        
        rpmlint fedora-review-0.1.0-2.fc17.noarch.rpm
        ================================================================================
        1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
        ================================================================================
        



Package approved

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: fedora-review
Short Description: Review tool for fedora rpm packages
Owners: sochotni pingou
Branches: el5 f15 f16
InitialCC:

Correction, el5->el6


New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: fedora-review
Short Description: Review tool for fedora rpm packages
Owners: sochotni pingou
Branches: el6 f15 f16
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Can you add something about fedora-review tool to the wiki?

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Reviewer

fedora-review-0.1.0-2.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fedora-review-0.1.0-2.fc15

fedora-review-0.1.0-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fedora-review-0.1.0-2.fc16

fedora-review-0.1.0-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fedora-review-0.1.0-2.el6

fedora-review-0.1.0-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.

fedora-review-0.1.1-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fedora-review-0.1.1-1.fc16

fedora-review-0.1.1-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fedora-review-0.1.1-1.el6

fedora-review-0.1.1-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fedora-review-0.1.1-1.fc15

fedora-review-0.1.1-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

fedora-review-0.1.1-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

fedora-review-0.1.1-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.