OK Rpmlint must be run on every package.
OK The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
OK The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
OK The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
OK The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file.
OK The spec file must be written in American English.
OK The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK f4fbb3465bdc0d0ac27bdd2972f7f469 The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
OK The package MUST successfully compile.
OK Correct BuildRequires.
OK Proper use of %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
OK Shared library files (not just symlinks) must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
OK Relocatable package must state this fact in the request for review.
OK A package must own all directories that it creates.
OK A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
? Permissions on files must be set properly.
OK Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK Each package must consistently use macros.
OK The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
OK If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application.
OK Header files must be in a -devel package.
OK Static libraries must be in a -static package.
OK Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'.
OK Library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1) and files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in -devel.
OK In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package.
OK Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
OK Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file.
OK At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).

Usually instead of 755 in %defattr(-, root, root, 0755) is used simply -.
rpmlint has true. The scripts which are installed into /usr/share meant to be examples. That means they shouldn't be executable.

Thanks for looking at this package.  I think that %defattr is
just a mistake copied from the RHEL package.  The following package
is just modified to make that change:

Spec URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/watchdog.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/watchdog-5.5-2.fc11.src.rpm

* Thu Mar  5 2009 Richard W.M. Jones <rjones> - 5.5-2
- Use '-' in defattr line instead of explicit file mode.

> The scripts which are installed into /usr/share meant to be
> examples. That means they shouldn't be executable.

I guess the trouble is if they're not executable, then people
won't be able to run them ...  You want me to make this change?

The executable examples were discussed many times. They shouldn't be executable and also they are located in doc, so that means it shouldn't be executable twice ;-)
I'm sorry but this blocker for review. Everything else is all right.

Can you point me to where this was discussed?  The only link I can find
to discussion is this thread [sorry about the horrible URL]:

http://markmail.org/search/fedora+packaging+%22Executable+documentation%22#query:fedora%20packaging%20%22Executable%20documentation%22+page:1+mid:yrrunqykcbvhx775+state:results

There's an oblique and unconvincing reference to this being a "mistake" here:

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

Also, lots of existing documentation contains executable scripts:

find /usr/share/doc/ -perm /111 -a \! -type d

(In reply to comment #5)
> Can you point me to where this was discussed?  The only link I can find
> to discussion is this thread [sorry about the horrible URL]:
> 
> http://markmail.org/search/fedora+packaging+%22Executable+documentation%22#query:fedora%20packaging%20%22Executable%20documentation%22+page:1+mid:yrrunqykcbvhx775+state:results
> 
> There's an oblique and unconvincing reference to this being a "mistake" here:
> 
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/FrequentlyMadeMistakes
I don't remember any particular discussion but bugzillas and time to time questions at fedora-devel. If you aren't sure you can ask again on fedora-devel.

> 
> Also, lots of existing documentation contains executable scripts:
> 
> find /usr/share/doc/ -perm /111 -a \! -type d  

And I believe this is wrong.

Raised on f-d-l:

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg00355.html

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/thread.html#00355

Have we reached an impasse on this? There wasn't really any
general agreement on the mailing list, even about whether the
current packaging guidelines say this is wrong, never mind what
the guideline should be.

I think FESCO should fix guidelines... Anyway leave it as it is, because there was made no decision. I don't want block your package for such trivial problem.

ACCEPTED

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: watchdog
Short Description: Software and/or hardware watchdog daemon
Owners: rjones
Branches: F-10
InitialCC:

How about bringing it up on the fedora-packaging list and ask the packaging folks to look at it?

cvs done.

Thanks - I asked the question on fedora-packaging list.

I'm sorry, I've already resent your email from fedora-devel to fedora-packaging :(

But anyway you can add it to cvs and then patch it, if they change it.

watchdog-5.5-2.fc10.1 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/watchdog-5.5-2.fc10.1

OK we're all done now.  Thanks Marcela for the review and
Kevin for the CVS work.

I removed the "cleanup-nfs" patch.  It looks very dubious
to me.  I can't see how it would do anything except break
NFS support.

watchdog-5.5-2.fc10.1 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.