Good:
+ Packing Naming is ok.
+ Name of the SPEC File matches the package name
+ Package hast consitant macor usage.
+ Packsge contains %{?dist} tag
+ SPEC start to use GPL as an license
+ License is an open source license
+ License Tag matches with license test in the package
+ Package contains verbatim copy of the license text
+ Spec file is written in English
+ Tar ball matches with upstream
  (md5sum: 4bb36538a2772ecbf1a542bc7d4746c0)
+ Package has correct buildroot
+ package doesn't contains subpackages.
+ Buildroot will cleaned on %clean section an on the beginning of the %install
section
+ Package conatins proper* %defattr and file permissions
+ %doc section is small
* %doc section doen't affect runtime
+ Package doesn't contains duplicates file in the %file section
+ Package doesn't contains files or directories owned by ohter packages
+ Local build works fine
+ Rpmlint quite on Source rpm.
+ Rpmlint quite on Debuginfo rpm.
+ Local install and uninstall works fine
+ Mock build works fine for Devel and F-7 (x86_64, i386, PPC64, PPC)

Bad:
- Rpmlint has complaints for the binary package:
pmlint pwsafe-0.2.0-0.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
W: pwsafe file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/man1/pwsafe.1.gz
W: pwsafe incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.2.0-0.1.fc8 0.2.0-0.1.fc7
- When I call 'pwsafe --createdb' I will got the following message:
WARNING: pwsafe unable to use secure ram (need to be setuid root)

(In reply to comment #1)

> W: pwsafe file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/man1/pwsafe.1.gz

Will fix.

> W: pwsafe incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.2.0-0.1.fc8 0.2.0-0.1.fc7

This will automagically go away when the package is built for rawhide.

> - When I call 'pwsafe --createdb' I will got the following message:
> WARNING: pwsafe unable to use secure ram (need to be setuid root)

Since I have not audited the code I'll not enable suid root for it.

Charset fixed in this build:
http://www.skytale.net/files/pwsafe/pwsafe.spec
http://www.skytale.net/files/pwsafe/pwsafe-0.2.0-0.2.sky.src.rpm

The UTF-8 issue seems to be fixed.

But I disagree agains you opion about the changelog entry.

You should write:

%changelog
* Sun Jul 08 2007 Ralf Ertzinger <ralf> 0.2.0-0.2
- Initial build for Fedora

Ths dist tag should not appear in the changelog entry.

As far as I understand the warning, I have complainted, the program try to use
an unswappable chunk of memory to store the password. It will be nice, if you
can examinate this, but his will not be a blocker for approving your package.

Leaving the dist tag out of the changelog entry does not make rpmlint happy,
either. It will complain as long as the E-V-R of the package and the E-V-R of
the latest changelog entry do not match.
As I said, the final build will not have this problem since both the package
E-V-R and the changelog E-V-R will be 0.2.0-1.fc8 (for the rawhide build)

The secure ram warning is about mlock() (marking a part of memory unswappable).
mlock() requires root privileges. This seems to be used all over the place in
pwsafe, and I do not feel comfortable at all about letting this effectively run
as root.

(In reply to comment #5)
> Leaving the dist tag out of the changelog entry does not make rpmlint happy,
> either. It will complain as long as the E-V-R of the package and the E-V-R of
> the latest changelog entry do not match.

I have to disagree with your. For demonstration please look at:

http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/pwsafe/pwsafe-0.2.0-0.2.fc7.src.rpm

You will find out, that this source rpm makes rpmlint happy.
 
> The secure ram warning is about mlock() (marking a part of memory unswappable).
> mlock() requires root privileges. This seems to be used all over the place in
> pwsafe, and I do not feel comfortable at all about letting this effectively run
> as root.

That is ok. It may be nice, if you can contact the upstream to make your
improvements.

The changelog stuff is not really important, I'll drop the disttag.

OK, If you have dropt the disttag from your package, I can APPROVE your package.

The disttag will be dropped in the final import.

Thank you for the review.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: pwsafe
Short Description: A unix command line utility that manages encrypted password
databases
Owners: redhat-bugzilla
Branches: F-7
InitialCC: 

cvs done.

I close this bug. But you should enter the bug number of the review on the
update process in bodhi.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: pwsafe
New Branches: EL-4 EL-5

CVS request denied.
The package maintainer for fedora should be making the request. 
if the maintainer doesnt wish to do EPEL then we need some indication that is the case  and then you need a full request as you would be the maintainer for the EPEL branches.

I have no interest in maintaining an EPEL branch. Are there some formalities to observe, or is this statement sufficient?

The is no need to contribute for EPEL, so I wondering, that you have request ones?

I have reread the last comments again. if Ralf has no interest for maintaining the EPEL part, put Jonathan may interested to see this package in EPEL, I want to suggest, that Ralf should create a CVSAdmin request for the EPEL branches.

In this Request Ralf can enter Jonathan as the owner of the EPEL branches.

I'd maintain it. I'll go ahead and request access to the existing branches. Go ahead and also add me as the owner of the EL branches. This program is very useful.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: pwsafe
New Branches: EL-4 EL-5

CVS done.

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=112018
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=112023