Bug 837331

rpmlint shows only harmless warnings:
nettle.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) cryptographic -> cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic
nettle.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic -> cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic
nettle.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US crypto -> crypt, crypts, crypt o
nettle.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US toolkits -> toolkit, tool kits, tool-kits
nettle.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) cryptographic -> cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic
nettle.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic -> cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic
nettle.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US crypto -> crypt, crypts, crypt o
nettle.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US toolkits -> toolkit, tool kits, tool-kits
nettle.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nettle-hash
nettle.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nettle-lfib-stream
nettle.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sexp-conv
nettle.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pkcs1-conv
nettle-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) cryptographic -> cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic
nettle-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic -> cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic
nettle-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US crypto -> crypt, crypts, crypt o
nettle-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US toolkits -> toolkit, tool kits, tool-kits
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 16 warnings.

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

Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail

==== C/C++ ====
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

==== 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 primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[!]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.

Missing:
BuildRequires:  texinfo-tex
BuildRequires:  texlive-dvips
BuildRequires:  ghostscript

[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present

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

[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot}

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

[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4

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

[-]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[-]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.

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

[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[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 License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: 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 Rpmlint output is silent.

only some false-positives

[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
  MD5SUM this package     : 450be8c4886d46c09f49f568ad6fa013
  MD5SUM upstream package : 450be8c4886d46c09f49f568ad6fa013

[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.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[!]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.

see the missing BuildRequires

[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[!]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used.

Check https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Texinfo

I'd replace
Requires(post): /sbin/install-info
Requires(preun): /sbin/install-info
with
Requires(post): info
Requires(preun): info

and also the '.gz' seems to be redundant in %preun

[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.

(In reply to comment #2)
> [!]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
>      that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
> 
> Missing:
> BuildRequires:  texinfo-tex
> BuildRequires:  texlive-dvips
> BuildRequires:  ghostscript

Added; thanks.

> [!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
> [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot}
> [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
> [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
>      beginning of %install.

I believe these are incorrect. It does have a Buildroot tag, does have a %clean section, does have %defattr in the %files sections, and does remove the buildroot first thing in %install.

> [!]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4218564

> [!]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
> 
> Check https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Texinfo
>
> I'd replace
> Requires(post): /sbin/install-info
> Requires(preun): /sbin/install-info
> with
> Requires(post): info
> Requires(preun): info
> 
> and also the '.gz' seems to be redundant in %preun

All fixed, thanks.

Spec URL: http://david.woodhou.se/nettle.spec
SRPM URL: http://david.woodhou.se/nettle-2.4-2.fc15.spec

(In reply to comment #3)
> > [!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
> > [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot}
> > [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
> > [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
> >      beginning of %install.
> 
> I believe these are incorrect. It does have a Buildroot tag, does have a
> %clean section, does have %defattr in the %files sections, and does remove
> the buildroot first thing in %install.

Yes and you don't have to have/do them, because rpm takes care of it, so you can safely remove them. See my links to guidelines. But these are more a SHOULD then MUST (certainly it's not a blocker) so I think this package is APPROVED !

Oh, I see. Sorry, I misparsed the comments. I'll remove these, since I don't care about building on RHEL5. Thanks.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: nettle
New Branches: f16 f17
Owners: dwmw2
InitialCC: 

Revive deprecated package.

Unretired devel, please take ownership in pkgdb.  Then submit a Paackage
Change request for the remaining branches.  Thanks!

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: nettle
New Branches: f16 f17
Owners: dwmw2

Thanks.

Btw, the 'master' branch still thinks it should be 'f15'. I'm not sure where fedpkg gets that from...

[dwmw2@shinybook master]$ fedpkg verrel
nettle-2.4-3.fc15

Git done (by process-git-requests).

I think that should be resolved after import and build.

*** Bug 833573 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Package unblocked in koji (https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5232) and built for f16/f17/rawhide. Thanks.