Hi Eric - are you still working on this? I'd started work on packaging a more recent version for my own use and ended up with 

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6594808/Fedora/mosquitto.spec
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6594808/Fedora/mosquitto-0.14.4-1.fc16.src.rpm

I've chosen to work with the CMake files and am working with upstream (oojah on freenode) to try and get these more cross platform


How do we move forwards -- do you want to review my version or shall we work on a hybrid package (For example I still need to get the python bindings working)

Oh, cool. I should just review your packages when I get time - TBH I haven't actually _used_ it, though I've been meaning to.  I bet yours are in better shape.

I'm pretty swamped right now, but will try to review yours.  Ping me if too much time goes by.  :)

-Eric

Typical Developers -- no releases for ages, then 2 come along at once :-)

0.15 now out and packaged up:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6594808/Fedora/mosquitto-0.15-1.fc16.src.rpm
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6594808/Fedora/mosquitto.spec

Weird; the spec above does not match the spec in the srpm above.  The former has at least a changelog entry that the latter does not have.  Explains why I'm getting:
  mosquitto.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.14.4-1
   ['0.15-1.fc18', '0.15-1']
while it's obviously correct in the linked spec.  I've just rebuilt the package with the newer file.

Anyway, rpmlint also gives:

  mosquitto.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
   /usr/lib64/libmosquittopp.so.0.15 /lib64/libm.so.6
  mosquitto.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
   /usr/lib64/libmosquittopp.so.0.15 /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1
Just overzealous linking, but not particularly problematic as those will already be paged in on any system anyway.

  mosquitto.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/mosquitto/pwfile.example
  mosquitto.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/mosquitto/aclfile.example
I'd suggest packaging these as documentation.

  mosquitto-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
No big deal.

You can remove the first lines of %install (buildroot cleaning) and %files (defattr); they're completely unnecessary.

The COPYING file needs to be included in the main package.

The %pre scriptlet is busted.  You need to actually put something in place of "HOMEDIR".

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:
   9d4c26fc99392150f57ae938fb03659cea4df7f31f5abb2e46ccfb7cedc23a54
    mosquitto-0.15.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
X license text not included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
X rpmlint has some valid complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
  mosquitto-0.15-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm
   config(mosquitto) = 0.15-1.fc18
   libmosquitto.so.0()(64bit)  
   libmosquittopp.so.0()(64bit)  
   mosquitto = 0.15-1.fc18
   mosquitto(x86-64) = 0.15-1.fc18
  =
   /bin/sh  
   /sbin/ldconfig  
   config(mosquitto) = 0.15-1.fc18
   libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)  
   libmosquitto.so.0()(64bit)  
   libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)  
   libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)  
   libwrap.so.0()(64bit)  
   shadow-utils  
   tcp_wrappers  

  mosquitto-devel-0.15-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm
   mosquitto-devel = 0.15-1.fc18
   mosquitto-devel(x86-64) = 0.15-1.fc18
  =
   libmosquitto.so.0()(64bit)  
   libmosquittopp.so.0()(64bit)  
   mosquitto = 0.15-1.fc18


* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* no bundled libraries.
* shared libraries are installed:
   ldconfig is called properly
   unversioned .so files are in the -devel package.search paths.
* 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 %pre scriptlet is busted.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* headers are in the -devel subpackage.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

The package review process needs reviewers!  If you haven't done any package
reviews recently, please consider doing one.

Anyone still want this to go in?  The needed fixes are pretty minor.

I would like to see it, but I think Andrew is more motivated... Andrew?

-Eric

Well, it's been another month.  I guess if nothing happens soon I'll go ahead and close this out.  I've closed out another review I was doing for Andrew because he failed to respond after a couple of months so maybe he's just not working on things any longer.

Well damn.  Let me try to pick it up, but not RIGHT now ... I'll try to get to it soon. 

thanks,
-Eric

This isn't going anywhere; I'm just trying to clean out my bug list.

My problem is I have considered using the package but have never actually used the package, so I don't have a ton of familiarity with it :)  Shouldn't stop me from addressing the review concerns though ;)

Eric, are you still willing to move forward with this review?  I'm willing to either complete an updated review or take over and resubmit mosquitto 1.1.3 as a new review obsoleting this one.

Rich, please go ahead & take it over.  I'm just too oversubscribed at the present time.

Thanks,
-Eric

Alright, the new review is ready to go

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 958585 ***

Thanks Rich, I appreciate it.