The newest version is 1.00 (2012-04-07). Please update your package, and I will do the review.

Here we go:

Spec URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/mtn-browse/mtn-browse.spec
SRPM URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/mtn-browse/mtn-browse-1.00-1.fc17.src.rpm

%changelog
* Thu Oct 18 2012 Thomas Moschny <..> - 1.00-1
- Update to 1.00.
- Update requirements.
- Directly call the linux-installer.
- Remove %%clean section, BuildRoot tag and %%defattr directive.
- Use RPM-4.9-style filtering.

Scratch build for Rawhide on Koji:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4608685

$ rpmlint -i -v *
mtn-browse.src: I: checking
mtn-browse.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workspace -> work space, work-space, works pace
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

mtn-browse.src: I: checking-url http://www.coosoft.plus.com/software.html (timeout 10 seconds)
mtn-browse.src: W: strange-permission mtn-browse.spec 0600L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.

mtn-browse.src: I: checking-url http://downloads.sourceforge.net/mtn-browse/mtn-browse-1.00.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds)
mtn-browse.noarch: I: checking
mtn-browse.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workspace -> work space, work-space, works pace
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

mtn-browse.noarch: I: checking-url http://www.coosoft.plus.com/software.html (timeout 10 seconds)
mtn-browse.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mtn-browse
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.

mtn-browse.spec: I: checking-url http://downloads.sourceforge.net/mtn-browse/mtn-browse-1.00.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

Please change the permissions of the spec file.


What about to use either meld or kompare as file comparison tool? If there's a way to let it build with both tools, we should do so. My idea was to build it twice and provide a -common package which includes files which are identical from both builds and split two subpackages named -meld and -kompare to satisfy the Gnome (Gtk) *and* KDE users. By the way, it is somewhat odd that a Gtk tool uses a KDE tool by default.

(In reply to comment #3)
> Please change the permissions of the spec file.

Done, and I also changed "workspace" to "work space" to make rpmlint happy.

> What about to use either meld or kompare as file comparison tool? If there's
> a way to let it build with both tools, we should do so. My idea was to build
> it twice and provide a -common package which includes files which are
> identical from both builds and split two subpackages named -meld and
> -kompare to satisfy the Gnome (Gtk) *and* KDE users. 

This is only about a configuration item (i.e. a string): the default command called for comparing two text files. The user can easily change this. However, in order to ensure a good user experience, we ensure the default is set to meld and require the meld package, so the user does not need to configure that himself (unless he or she wants to use a different tool).

I don't see a point in making two packages with different defaults (also, there wouldn't be anything left for a -common package).

> By the way, it is
> somewhat odd that a Gtk tool uses a KDE tool by default.

Right. kompare only *used* to be the default. I forgot that I already discussed this long time ago with upstream, and the default is now meld. Hence, I removed the now wrong comment in the spec file.

Spec URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/mtn-browse/mtn-browse.spec
SRPM URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/mtn-browse/mtn-browse-1.00-2.fc17.src.rpm

New scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4608803

$ rpmlint -i -v *
mtn-browse.src: I: checking
mtn-browse.src: I: checking-url http://www.coosoft.plus.com/software.html (timeout 10 seconds)
mtn-browse.src: I: checking-url http://downloads.sourceforge.net/mtn-browse/mtn-browse-1.00.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds)
mtn-browse.noarch: I: checking
mtn-browse.noarch: I: checking-url http://www.coosoft.plus.com/software.html (timeout 10 seconds)
mtn-browse.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mtn-browse
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.

mtn-browse.spec: I: checking-url http://downloads.sourceforge.net/mtn-browse/mtn-browse-1.00.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

No recognizable issues anymore.


---------------------------------
key:

[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
---------------------------------

[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
    GPLv3+
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
    $ sha256sum *
    fd476fbf07bf4886128a13b1474ebee98b8856a531ef6eb1461b7df6b8d2d888  mtn-browse-1.00.tar.gz
    fd476fbf07bf4886128a13b1474ebee98b8856a531ef6eb1461b7df6b8d2d888  mtn-browse-1.00.tar.gz.orig

[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture.
[.] 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.
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[.] 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.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] 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.
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] 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).
[+] 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.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.
[X] 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.

You will need to add a *.desktop file. It is unquestionable a graphical application.

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


[.] 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.
[.] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
    See Koji build above (which uses Mock anyway).
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
[.] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
[.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency.
[.] 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.
[.] 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.
[.] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.


Please add a *.desktop file, and your package is ready for approval.

Good catch! Added a .desktop file:

Spec URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/mtn-browse/mtn-browse.spec
SRPM URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/mtn-browse/mtn-browse-1.00-3.fc17.src.rpm

OK. The created *.desktop file looks fine, and it will be installed properly with desktop-file-install.

----------------

PACKAGE APPROVED

----------------

Currently we have no icon named "mtn-browse" installed with this package. Doesn't matter, because it's not up to you to add it. The desktop file works as it is. As far as I can see, some environments doesn't use menu icons by default.

Would be nice if you could inform the upstream folks that the desktop file is missing. If they add it to the VCS tree, the "Name" and "Comment" entries could be also translated. For the time being, you might add at least German translations. Just an idea, I don't want to force you, your package is approved anyway.

(In reply to comment #7)
> PACKAGE APPROVED

Many thanks for the review!

> Currently we have no icon named "mtn-browse" installed with this package.
> Doesn't matter, because it's not up to you to add it. The desktop file works
> as it is. As far as I can see, some environments doesn't use menu icons by
> default.

Just for the record, I currently use ./lib/ui/pixmaps/mtn-browse-small.png and copy it to %{_datadir}/pixmaps/mtn-browse.png. On my (xfce) desktop the icon is properly displayed in the menu.

> Would be nice if you could inform the upstream folks that the desktop file
> is missing. If they add it to the VCS tree, the "Name" and "Comment" entries
> could be also translated. For the time being, you might add at least German
> translations. Just an idea, I don't want to force you, your package is
> approved anyway.

Good ideas, will do so.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: mtn-browse
Short Description: Application for browsing Monotone VCS databases
Owners: thm
Branches: f16 f17 f18
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

(In reply to comment #8)
> Just for the record, I currently use ./lib/ui/pixmaps/mtn-browse-small.png
> and copy it to %{_datadir}/pixmaps/mtn-browse.png. On my (xfce) desktop the
> icon is properly displayed in the menu.

Then do so for the package, too. Means, put a symlink from ./lib/ui/pixmaps/mtn-browse-small.png to %{_datadir}/pixmaps/mtn-browse.png. Then it is available immediately after installing the package.

Any news...?

mtn-browse-1.00-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mtn-browse-1.00-3.fc18

mtn-browse-1.00-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mtn-browse-1.00-3.fc17

mtn-browse-1.00-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.

mtn-browse-1.00-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.

mtn-browse-1.00-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.