Also in Debian now:

https://packages.qa.debian.org/c/captagent.html

Taken!  =)

***

First look at spec-file:


> Source0:	%name-%version.tar.gz

This tarball comes from github?  Please use github-style source urls:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL#Git_Hosting_Services


> Requires(post): systemd
> Requires(preun): systemd
> Requires(postun): systemd
>
> … snip …
>
> %post
> %systemd_post %name.service
>
> %preun
> %systemd_preun %name.service

Please use proper macros for this:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets?rd=Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Systemd


> %prep
> %setup -q

Please use new `%autosetup` macro instead of `%setup -q`.


> %build
> autoreconf -if
> %configure
> make

Please use `%make_build`-macro instead of plain `make`.


> %files
> %doc COPYING

Please package license-files as `%license` instead of `%doc`.  The soure-tarball contains an AUTHORS-file, which is part of the license…


> %{_libdir}/%name/modules/*.so

This way the built rpm does not properly own the directories below %{_libdir}.
See:  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership


Please fix those directly obvious issues, properly bump revision and I'll take a detailed review of the package.

Besides my previous comment, the package FTBFS:


> Executing(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.H5Q6Wj
> + umask 022
> + cd /builddir/build/BUILD
> + cd captagent-6.2.0.2
> + autoreconf -if
> /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.H5Q6Wj: line 31: autoreconf: command not found
> RPM build errors:
> error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.H5Q6Wj (%build)
>     Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.H5Q6Wj (%build)
> Child return code was: 1

You need to explicitly add:

BuildRequires: autoconf
BuildRequires: automake
BuildRequires: libtool

For full logs, see scratch-build on Koji:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16194917

Björn, thanks for reviewing this spec file

I'm happy to make these changes, but will all of these things be compatible with RHEL7 / EPEL7 as well?  I'm hoping to use the same spec file for both Fedora and EPEL RPMs.

If some of the changes are not good for RHEL7/EPEL builds, are they essential for Fedora?

(In reply to Daniel Pocock from comment #4)
> Björn, thanks for reviewing this spec file
> 
> I'm happy to make these changes, but will all of these things be compatible
> with RHEL7 / EPEL7 as well?  I'm hoping to use the same spec file for both
> Fedora and EPEL RPMs.
> 
> If some of the changes are not good for RHEL7/EPEL builds, are they
> essential for Fedora?

You're welcome.  Those changes would be the same for EPEL7; there is no need to have some conditionals-magic for my suggeseted changes.

BuildRequires on auto(conf|make) and libtool are needed on any release of Fedora or EPEL, those `%make_*`-macros are available on EPEL >= 6, using systemd-macros is mandatory starting with EPEL7 [1], %autosetup works with all maintained releases of Fedora and EPEL (with a little exception on EPEL5 [2]), `%license` translates to `%doc` on EPEL <= 6 [3] and changes for github-style source packaging works fine for Fedora and EPEL >= 5.  For EPEL <= 6 the might apply some other conditional changes [4] not needed for Fedora or EPEL >= 7.


[1]  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:SysVInitScript#EPEL_SysV_Initscripts
[2]  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#.25autosetup
[3]  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#Previously_required_boilerplate
[4]  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging

This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems
that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please
respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the
submitter to proceed with the review.

If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the
fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take
this ticket.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.

This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket reviewer failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we reset the status and the assignee of this ticket.

This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.