* source files match upstream:
   2acac418ed0be47bf282474af403b698841cc2307d46d3a5e4dde41e03dceab5  
   nec2c-0.6.tar.gz
 package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
 specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
 summary is OK.
 description is OK.
 dist tag is present.
 build root is OK.
 license field matches the actual license.
 license is open source-compatible.
 license text not included upstream.
 license text included in package.
 latest version is being packaged.
 BuildRequires are proper.
 compiler flags are appropriate.
 %clean is present.
 package builds in mock ( ).
 package installs properly
 debuginfo package looks complete.
 rpmlint is silent.
 final provides and requires are sane:

 %check is present and all tests pass:

 no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
 owns the directories it creates.
 doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
 no duplicates in %files.
 file permissions are appropriate.
 no scriptlets present.
 code, not content.
 documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
 %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
 no headers.
 no pkgconfig files.
 no static libraries.
 no libtool .la files.

Hmm, seems I errantly clicked Save Changes.  Weird.  Anyway, here's the actual
review:

I talked with Bob about this package at fudcon but the suggested fix doesn't
seem to have made it.  No matter, it's trivial.

The debuginfo package comes out empty because the compiler isn't called
properly.  Fixing it is triviak; just change %build to:
  make CFLAGS="%{optflags}" %{?_smp_mflags}
and everything comes out OK.  Of course you should test that this doesn't
somehow break things.

Honestly, though, that's a trivial change.  I'll approve it and you can fix it
up when you check in.

* source files match upstream:
   2acac418ed0be47bf282474af403b698841cc2307d46d3a5e4dde41e03dceab5  
   nec2c-0.6.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
X compiler flags are not correct.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly
X debuginfo package is incomplete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   nec2c = 0.6-1.fc9
  =
   (nothing besides libc)
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.  I haven't a clue how to test 
   this, but installed the resulting package and it at least runs and gives a 
   usage message.
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

APPROVED, just add CFLAGS to the make line when you check in.

Updated SPEC and SRPM per Tibbs' request

Spec URL: http://hams.bobjensen.com/SPECS/nec2c.spec
SRPM URL: http://hams.bobjensen.com/SRPMS/nec2c-0.6-2.fc8.src.rpm

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: nec2c
Short Description: a translation of the Numerical Electromagnetics Code (NEC2)
Owners: sconklin, bjensen
Branches: F-8
InitialCC: 
Cvsextras Commits: Yes

cvs done.

Thanks Kevin,

I'm sorry this wasn't in the original request, it's been requested that this
package also be in F-7, could someone create that branch for us and then I think
we'll be done.

Thanks again,

Steve

no problem. cvs done.

Thanks!

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: nec2c
New Branches: el6
Owners: hobbes1069
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).