I cannot sponsor you, however here is an informal review based on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines

You'll also want to consider adding this as blocks FE-NEEDSPONSOR (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=FE-NEEDSPONSOR)

MUST Items:
Items marked as MUST are things that the package (or reviewer) MUST do. If a package fails a MUST item, that is considered a blocker. No package with blockers can be approved on a review. Those items must be fixed before approval can be given.

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

ok

rpmlint rpmbuild/SPECS/python-pgu.spec rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-pgu-0.12.3-1.fc12.src.rpm rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/python-pgu-0.12.3-1.fc12.noarch.rpm 
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

 -  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. [3]

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.[4]

ok

 -  MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]

ok

 -  MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]

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. [7]

n/a, noarch, purely interpreted code

 -  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. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]

n/a, noarch, purely interpreted code

 -  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. Apply common sense.

ok

 -  MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]

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. [10]

n/a, not a lib

 -  MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]

ok

 -  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. [12]

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. [13]

you %files section contains:

%{python_sitelib}/*
%{_bindir}/*

this states that your package owns all of the contents of /usr/bin and /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ this is incorrect, please specify the files/directories it does own.

 -  MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [14]

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. [15]

ok

 -  MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [16]

ok

 -  MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [17]

ok

 -  MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [18]

ok

 -  MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [19]

n/a, small ammount of %docs

 -  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. [19]

ok

 -  MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [20]

n/a

 -  MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [21]

n/a

 -  MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [22]

n/a

 -  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. [20]

n/a

 -  MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [23]

n/a

 -  MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.[21]

ok

 -  MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [24]

Your package has a GUI (specifigcally leveledit and tileedit), but no desktop file

 -  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. [25]

see comments above

 -  MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [26]

ok

 -  MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [27]

okj

SHOULD Items:
Items marked as SHOULD are things that the package (or reviewer) SHOULD do, but is not required to do.

 -  SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [28]

ok

 -  SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [29]

no translations, if available, please provide them

 -  SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [30]

ok

 -  SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [31]

noarch

 -  SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.

works for me

 -  SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [32]

ok

 -  SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [23]

n/a

 -  SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [22]

n/a

 -  SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. 

ok

Thank you for your review

(In reply to comment #1)
> You'll also want to consider adding this as blocks FE-NEEDSPONSOR
> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
> 
Ok, thanks, it's done.

>  -  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. [13]
> 
> you %files section contains:
> 
> %{python_sitelib}/*
> %{_bindir}/*
> 
> this states that your package owns all of the contents of /usr/bin and
> /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ this is incorrect, please specify the
> files/directories it does own.
> 
I don't see what's wrong with this section.
According to this page : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25files_section

"Note that "%{_bindir}/*" does not claim that this package owns the /usr/bin directory - it claims that all the files that were installed inside the build root 's /usr/bin are owned by the package."
This states that my package claims ownership of the files it installed in the %{buildroot}/usr/bin directory. That's different from the "real" /usr/bin directory.

This makes it clear too:
"Claiming ownership of "%{_bindir}/*" is fine, though; that just claims ownership of the subdirectories and files you placed under %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}."

What did I miss?

>  -  MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
> file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
> %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
> a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
> [24]
> 
> Your package has a GUI (specifigcally leveledit and tileedit), but no desktop
> file
> 
My package has indeed GUIs, but I don't think it should include a GUI because these GUIs are only examples for devs and NOT useful programs for the end-user.
I don't think that having one or two new menu-entry whenever an user installs a game that has python-pgu as a dependency is a good thing.

The different solutions I see for this problem are:
- Move these examples in a different package (like python-pgu-examples?)
- Just remove these examples from the package
- just leave them in the package and add a comment explaining why there's no .desktop file

What do you think should be done?

>  -  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. [25]
> 
> see comments above
> 
See answer above

(In reply to comment #2)
> I don't see what's wrong with this section.
> According to this page :
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25files_section
> 
> "Note that "%{_bindir}/*" does not claim that this package owns the /usr/bin
> directory - it claims that all the files that were installed inside the build
> root 's /usr/bin are owned by the package."
> This states that my package claims ownership of the files it installed in the
> %{buildroot}/usr/bin directory. That's different from the "real" /usr/bin
> directory.
> 
> This makes it clear too:
> "Claiming ownership of "%{_bindir}/*" is fine, though; that just claims
> ownership of the subdirectories and files you placed under
> %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}."
> 
> What did I miss?
> 

Nothing, I'w new to packaging too and missed that, I apologize.    

> My package has indeed GUIs, but I don't think it should include a GUI because
> these GUIs are only examples for devs and NOT useful programs for the end-user.
> I don't think that having one or two new menu-entry whenever an user installs a
> game that has python-pgu as a dependency is a good thing.
> 
> The different solutions I see for this problem are:
> - Move these examples in a different package (like python-pgu-examples?)
> - Just remove these examples from the package
> - just leave them in the package and add a comment explaining why there's no
> .desktop file
> 
> What do you think should be done?

If they are examples, then they should moved moved out of /usr/bin and into an examples directory as part of %doc

(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > What did I miss?
> > 
> 
> Nothing, I'w new to packaging too and missed that, I apologize.    
> 
Ok, no problem ;)


> If they are examples, then they should moved moved out of /usr/bin and into an
> examples directory as part of %doc  

Ok, that's what I did, here are the updated files:

Spec URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~louizatakk/rpm/python-pgu.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.fedoraproject.org/~louizatakk/rpm/python-pgu-0.12.3-2.fc12.src.rpm

any news from here?

@ William will you review this package?

I'm not using Fedora as my primary system anymore.

Are you working on this Florent Le Coz?

Well, in fact I'm just waiting for any approval, or comment, or anything…

I (think I) fixed all the issues that were reported on this package.
What am I supposed to do, beside making a package, fixing it and waiting for a sponsore...?
(by the way, I made some other packages that you could review, if you want)

Please tell me what I'm missing :)

Some notes:

* License
  - License tag for this package should be "LGPLv2+".

* Macros
  - Use macros correctly. /usr/share should be %{_datadir}
    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/RPMMacros

* Bundled fonts
  - Fedora forbids including font files bundled in non-font
    software tarballs into binary rpms. If such fonts are
    needed for the software, you have to replace the bundled
    font files with font files provided by font-related binary
    rpms 
    (i.e. replace the actual font file with symlink to
          the font file provided by font related rpms)
    - For this package, Vera.ttf is provided by bitstream-vera-sans-fonts,
      for example and you should use this system-widely provided
      font file.

* Documents
  - Usually files like "INSTALL.txt" are for people trying to
    build the software by themselved and not needed for people
    using rpm
  - Also "build.py" under %docdir/%name-%version seems unneeded.

Ok, everything is fixed.
Now rpmlint gives two warnings :

python-pgu.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/pgu/themes/default/Vera.ttf /usr/share/fonts/bitstream-vera/Vera.ttf
python-pgu.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/pgu/themes/gray/Vera.ttf /usr/share/fonts/bitstream-vera/Vera.ttf

These symlinks are there to replace the bundled Vera.ttf files. It then seems to be safe to ignore these warnings.

SRPM URL: http://louizatakk.fedorapeople.org/rpm/python-pgu-0.12.3-3.fc12.src.rpm
Spec URL: http://louizatakk.fedorapeople.org/rpm/python-pgu.spec

Okay.

--------------------------------------------------------------
   This package (python-pgu) is APPROVED by mtasaka
--------------------------------------------------------------

Please follow the procedure written on:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join
from "Install the Client Tools (Koji)".

Now I am sponsoring you (please check)

If you want to import this package into Fedora 11/12, you also have
to look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UpdatesSystem/Bodhi-info-DRAFT
(after once you rebuilt this package on koji Fedora rebuilding system).

If you have questions, please ask me.

Removing NEEDSPONSOR.

! Note
  - When doing CVS admin requests (written on:
    http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure )
    when you cannot set fedora-cvs flag to ? , please relogin to
    redhat bugzilla with mail account registered on FAS

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: python-pgu
Short Description: pygame addon for making GUIs
Owners: louizatakk
Branches: F-11 F-12
InitialCC:

CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).

python-pgu-0.12.3-3.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-pgu-0.12.3-3.fc11

python-pgu-0.12.3-3.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-pgu-0.12.3-3.fc12

python-pgu-0.12.3-3.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 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 python-pgu'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2010-1481

python-pgu-0.12.3-3.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 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 python-pgu'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F12/FEDORA-2010-1482

Closing.

python-pgu-0.12.3-3.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

python-pgu-0.12.3-3.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.