Koji build (hopefully it finishes, otherwise I'll probably make a fool of myself)
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1298961

rpmlint whines about no documentation.
Upstream includes none. Really! Honestly!

Got it right now:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1299598

Replacing the file in place, hopefully, noone will complain
SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/jsl.spec
SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/jsl-0.3.0-1.fc11.src.rpm

pkg review:

MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review.
- OK, except "no documentation" warning. Online documentation available, no documentation provided in upstream source.

MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
- OK

# MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
- OK

# MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
- OK

# MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines .
- OK

# MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. 
- not sure, page on sourceforge present this as MPLv1.1 or GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+

# MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
- OK, no license file present

# MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
- OK

# MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
- OK

# MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
- OK

# MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. 
- OK

# MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. 
- OK

# MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. 
- OK

# MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
- OK, no locales

# MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
- OK, no library found

# MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.
- OK

# MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory.
- OK

# MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings.
- OK

# MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, 
- OK
# MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
- OK

# MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
- OK

# MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
- OK

# MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. 
- OK, no documentation

# MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. 
- OK

# MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. 
- OK

# MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. 
- OK

# MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability).
- OK, no .pc files

# MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package.
- OK, no library

# MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} 
- OK

# MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.
- OK, no .la files

# MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file
- OK, no desktop application

# MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. 
- OK

# MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
- OK

# MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
- OK

conclusion:
- License reported on sourceforge differs from license in spec file.
- Even it is not blocker, would be good to know issue id or source of patches.

(In reply to comment #3)
> conclusion:
> - License reported on sourceforge differs from license in spec file.

Fixed.

> - Even it is not blocker, would be good to know issue id or source of patches.  

Patches are my own (see the comment in them). Code base in upstream SVN repository changed significantly since this stable release and I have not verified whether the patches apply against it. (Release early, release often...). I'll probably do upon next stable release.

New package:

SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/jsl.spec
SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/jsl-0.3.0-1.fc11.src.rpm

APPROVED

Thanks a lot for the review Jan!

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: jsl
Short Description: Check JavaScript code for common mistakes
Owners: lkundrak
Branches: EL-5 F-10

I assume you want an F-11 branch here as well. 

cvs done with an F-11 branch added.

Imported and built.