1 - please fix macros.

replace
%{_sysconfdir}/init.d/
with
%{_initrddir} 

more info here.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CreatingPackageHowTo#Macros

2 - improve scriptlets

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Running_scriptlets_only_in_certain_situations

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets

also when a more experienced user look your spec, he will ask to use install -p to preserve timestamps :-)

(In reply to comment #1)
> 1 - please fix macros.
> 
> replace
> %{_sysconfdir}/init.d/
> with
> %{_initrddir} 
> 

Fixed.

> 2 - improve scriptlets
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Running_scriptlets_only_in_certain_situations
> 
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets
> 

Fixed.

> also when a more experienced user look your spec, he will ask to use install -p
> to preserve timestamps :-)

Fixed.

New SPEC: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/SPECS/ris-linux.spec
New SRPM: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/f9/SRPMS/ris-linux-0.4-2.fc9.src.rpm

Fixed some other issues with the package:

New SPEC: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/SPECS/ris-linux.spec
New SRPM: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/f10/SRPMS/ris-linux-0.4-3.fc10.src.rpm

As promised....

Could you define "WinPE" in your %description?  Just a parenthetical "Windows Preinstallation Environment" should be sufficient.  Also, it needs a period at the end.

You're missing Requires(preun): initscripts, and also a python dependency for your %post script.

Does it make sense to include the sample .sif files?  What about the manual from the upstream web site (http://oss.netfarm.it/guides/ris-linux.pdf)?

This package is a little odd in that it installs as a service, but doesn't actually put any executables in %path.  There isn't anything in the guidelines that would prohibit this as far as I can tell, but it seems a little admin-unfriendly.  I don't know what to do about it; maybe a wrapper script that just calls "python /usr/share/ris-linux/binlsrv.py".  But I'll leave that up to you.

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:
   196c7441f498154d1ae41ef4f1e5107296b7de39f345c763ccce2e913432ae19  
   ris-linux-0.4.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
X description could use a bit of work
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text not included upstream.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   config(ris-linux) = 0.4-3.fc11
   ris-linux = 0.4-3.fc11
  =
   /bin/sh
   /usr/bin/env
   chkconfig
   config(ris-linux) = 0.4-3.fc11
   initscripts
   python(abi) >= 2.1
   samba
   tftp-server

* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
X scriptlet dependencies are off.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.

(In reply to comment #5)
> Could you define "WinPE" in your %description?  Just a parenthetical "Windows
> Preinstallation Environment" should be sufficient.  Also, it needs a period at
> the end.
> 

Fixed.

> You're missing Requires(preun): initscripts, and also a python dependency for
> your %post script.
> 

Fixed.

> Does it make sense to include the sample .sif files?  What about the manual
> from the upstream web site (http://oss.netfarm.it/guides/ris-linux.pdf)?
> 

I've included the sample .sif file, although I'm reluctant to say it's good enough.

The upstream .pdf documentation though I'm not including. Other documentation is in the works that includes using Cobbler to manage the largest part of what is in the upstream documentation, and I'd rather set the record straight then whilst not confusing users of the package now (like with patching in.tftpd).

> This package is a little odd in that it installs as a service, but doesn't
> actually put any executables in %path.  There isn't anything in the guidelines
> that would prohibit this as far as I can tell, but it seems a little
> admin-unfriendly.  I don't know what to do about it; maybe a wrapper script
> that just calls "python /usr/share/ris-linux/binlsrv.py".  But I'll leave that
> up to you.
> 

Fixed, and actually works way better for "service ris-linuxd status". Maybe this should be a Packaging Guidelines? ;-)

New SPEC: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/SPECS/ris-linux.spec
New SRPM: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/f10/SRPMS/ris-linux-0.4-4.fc10.src.rpm

Looks good to me.  No big deal if you don't want to include the PDF docs; I didn't actually verify that they were useful.  This seems a useful thing to be able to do and I hope that at some point there's some reasonable documentation explaining the procedure.

APPROVED

Thanks, I owe you a beverage of your choice ;-)

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: ris-linux
Short Description: RIS for Linux - Boot winpe from the net / Ris Windows Installation
Owners: kanarip
Branches: EL-4 EL-5 F9 F-10
InitialCC: kanarip

cvs done.

ris-linux-0.4-4.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update ris-linux'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-0904

ris-linux-0.4-4.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing-newkey update ris-linux'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-0913

ris-linux-0.4-4.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

ris-linux-0.4-4.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.