I'll take this but it might be a while until a manage to do a review, hopefully this weekend, though.

As this is only my second review, I have listed the relevant must and should items below with some comments.

MUST items:

MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review.
Rpmlint output:

vdr-epgsearch.i586: W: non-standard-uid /etc/vdr/plugins/epgsearch/conf.d vdr
vdr-epgsearch.i586: W: non-standard-uid /etc/vdr/plugins/epgsearch vdr
vdr-epgsearch.i586: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/vdr/data/epgsearch vdr
vdr-epgsearch.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: %{name}-0.9.25.beta14-fedora.patch

That's ok, rpmlint doesn't see Patch0 being installed, not a problem.

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: OK
MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines: I've tried to check all of these to the best of my knowledge and it should be OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines: GPLv2+, OK.
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license: OK
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: COPYING has GPLv2, OK.
MUST: The spec file must be written in American English: I presume this is OK, my knowledge of the differences between American and British English is limited.
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: OK
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture: OK, checked with mock.
MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines: OK, checked with mock.
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro: OK
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: doesn't apply to VDR plugins.
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: seems to be OK.
MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings: seems to be OK.
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line: 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: 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: Not tested but I don't see why not, so OK.
MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time: Seems to be 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.


SHOULD items:

SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock: OK.
SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures: Couldn't test.

SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example: I can't test this item currently, it'll have to wait for a while. I consider this a review blocker, although one which is up to me and not the packager.

Thanks for the review.  Note that when you find time to test, this package uses the new ISA qualified dependency to vdr(abi) which is available in vdr >= 1.6.0-26 which is currently in Rawhide only.  I may end up pushing that to F-11 sometime later, but until that, either use Rawhide to test, rebuild vdr 1.6.0-26 for an earlier distro you're using, or install the plugin with --nodeps.

I tested this package by updating VDR and all the other plugins from Rawhide, Fedora 11's RPM has support for packages with XZ payload now, so it was no problem. The package seems to work fine, although the update removed all my search timers, that's probably due to a path having been changed between earlier testing versions of the package and the latest. It doesn't have anything to do with the review, though.

In my opinion this package is suitable for inclusion into Fedora and I will accept the package.

Thanks, adding you as a co-maintainer as discussed in private mail.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: vdr-epgsearch
Short Description: Powerful schedules menu replacement plugin for VDR
Owners: scop vpv
Branches: F-11
InitialCC:

cvs done.

Built for devel, F-11 forthcoming:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1597404

vdr-epgsearch-0.9.25-0.3.beta14.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/vdr-epgsearch-0.9.25-0.3.beta14.fc11