OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (BSD)
OK - License field in spec matches
See below - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
ef40944118841803391d212cb64d3c5b  strace-4.5.15.tar.bz2
ef40944118841803391d212cb64d3c5b  strace-4.5.15.tar.bz2.1
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
See below - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content.

OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
See below - No rpmlint output.
OK - final provides and requires are sane:

SHOULD Items:

See below - Should build in mock.
See below - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version
3 outstanding bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package.

Issues:

1. Might consider adding the COPYRIGHT file as a %doc.
Additionally: Changelog CREDITS NEWS PORTING TODO
might also be nice to have as doc files.

2. Please use the approved buildroot:
      %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)

3. If this package can avoid it, please don't use '%makeinstall'.
Instead use 'make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install' instead.
See: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MakeInstall

4. Our pal rpmlint says:

a)
W: strace summary-ended-with-dot Tracks and displays system calls associated
with a running process.

Suggest: remove . at the end of the summary.

b)
W: strace macro-in-%changelog patch

Suggest: change the "%patch" in the changelog to "%%patch" to make sure rpm
doesn't expand it as a macro.

5. This package doesn't seem to compile under mock for i386/x86_64 in devel.

The build ends in:

net.c: In function 'printsock':
net.c:957: error: field 'nl' has incomplete type
make[1]: *** [net.o] Error 1

Can you duplicate this problem there?
I ran the above checks against the fc6 version for now, but once it
builds I will want to make a recheck for devel.

6. Only 3 outstanding bugs, and none of them seem directly related to
packaging. You might want to take a look at them and see if any of them
can be addressed while you are making the above changes.

7. Why the strace64_arches sections? It seems to contain ppc64, but
I don't think thats a platform fedora currently builds for.

8. Minor: might add '%{?_smp_mflags}' to the make line to support
faster builds on multi cpu machines.

9. Is there a reason to not ship the 'strace-graph' binary?

Resetting flags and such per the new offical review guidelines. 
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-February/msg00682.html

I think all these issues are resolved in the F8 (maybe even F7) rpms.
Please complete the review.

strace-graph has never been included or supported in any Fedora or RHL release
before.  I don't intend to start maintaining it now.

Yes indeed. All above items are taken care of. Thanks for looking at it. 

The only very minor issue I see now is: 

strace.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/strace-4.5.16/ChangeLog
strace.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/strace-4.5.16/CREDITS

If you like, you could run 'iconv' and make sure those files are utf8. 
No big deal. 

You are of course free to not ship strace-graph, but do you think it would be an
additional support burden?

This merge review is APPROVED. Feel free to close RAWHIDE. 

I converted those files, so they won't be flagged in the next version when it's
released.