Assigning.

- Change
 Requires:       /sbin/chkconfig /sbin/service
to
 Requires: chkconfig initscripts
to speed up dependency resolution.

- Patch1 but no Patch0?

- Version is really 2, not 2.0. There's already an Epoch defined, so this could be rectified by an epoch bump.

- Source URL should be
 http://downloads.sourceforge.net/gkernel/rng-tools-2.tar.gz
not
 http://download.sourceforge.net/gkernel/rng-tools-2.tar.gz
Ideally %{version} macro should be used here.

- %configure picks up correct compiler flags.
 make CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS"
should be
 make %{?_smp_mflags}
to enable SMP compilation.

- You can drop
 mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_sbindir}
 mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_initrddir}
 mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/sysconfig
 mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man{1,8}
as this is automatically done by make install.

- If you
 %define _sbindir /sbin
at the top of the spec file, you can use plain %configure and %{_sbindir} in %files.

You might want to change the .gz suffixes to .* in %files.

**

rpmlint output is clean.


MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK

MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. NEEDSWORK
- Macros are mixed. After addressal to comment #2, there shouldn't be a problem anymore.

MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the  Licensing Guidelines. OK
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
MUST: Clean section exists. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A

MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. NEEDSWORK
- Add AUTHORS, ChangeLog, COPYING, NEWS and README to %doc.

MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK
SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK

(In reply to comment #3)
> MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK

Whoops, this is a negatory.

According to the Package Naming Guidelines, the name of the package should be rng-tools, not rng-utils. The package should be renamed to rng-utils. The renamal could be done alongside with this review.

Why should the package name deviate from the upstream name?

This will only add confusion to users.

Whoops, nevermind.  That last comment is obviously invalid.

Obsoleted by new review request due to renamal.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 576724 ***