Review for release 26.2.2:
* RPM name is OK
* Builds fine in mock
* File list looks OK

Needs work:
* BuildRoot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
  (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot)
* BuildRequires: perl should not be included
  (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#Exceptions)
* Preserve timestamps when installing files
* Consider using {?dist} in the Release tag

Notes:
* -Wall is already in RPM_OPT_FLAGS

Rpmlint is not silent:

Source RPM:
W: unix2dos summary-not-capitalized unix2dos - UNIX to DOS text file format converter
     Don't use the name in the Summary
W: unix2dos invalid-license distributable
W: unix2dos no-url-tag
W: unix2dos macro-in-%changelog description
W: unix2dos macro-in-%changelog build
W: unix2dos macro-in-%changelog description

rpmlint of unix2dos-2.2-26:
W: unix2dos summary-not-capitalized unix2dos - UNIX to DOS text file format converter
W: unix2dos invalid-license distributable
W: unix2dos no-url-tag

> * Preserve timestamps when installing files

Not sure what I need to change for this.

> W: unix2dos summary-not-capitalized unix2dos - UNIX to DOS text file format 
> converter
>      Don't use the name in the Summary

Got a better summary I can put in there?

> W: unix2dos invalid-license distributable

It comes with its own COPYRIGHT file, which is not a canned license.  What
should I put for 'License:'?

> W: unix2dos no-url-tag

No upstream any more as far as I can tell.

Hi Tim,

> Not sure what I need to change for this.
To preserve timestamps, use install -p or cp -p

> Got a better summary I can put in there?

"UNIX to DOS text file format converter" sounds good to me
One of the guidelines is to not repeat the name of the package in the summary,
that's all.

> It comes with its own COPYRIGHT file, which is not a canned license.  What
> should I put for 'License:'?

I'm not sure what rpmlint thinks are valid licenses.
Distributable will do.

> No upstream any more as far as I can tell.

That's ok.

Okay, thanks.

Tagged and built as 2.2-27.fc7.

Ah, Distributable (with a capital D) is a valid license. distributable is not.
DEFAULT_VALID_LICENSES in /usr/share/rpmlint/TagsCheck.py contains a list of valid licenses.

If you can change that, it would be nice.
Since I see no further blockers, this package is approved. Please leave the ticket assigned to yourself.

Tagged and built as 2.2-28.fc7.

Thanks!