$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.rpm
aswvdial.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Dockapp -> Dock app, Dock-app, Dockage
aswvdial.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) wvdial -> medial, audial, radial
aswvdial.src: W: spelling-error Summary(de) Dockapp -> Dock, Andocke, Documenta
aswvdial.src: W: spelling-error Summary(de) wvdial -> radial, Dialog, Dialyse
aswvdial.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wvdial -> medial, audial, radial
aswvdial.src: W: spelling-error %description -l de wvdial -> radial, Dialog, Dialyse
aswvdial.src: W: spelling-error %description -l de conf -> Connor, contra, Conferencier
aswvdial.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Dockapp -> Dock app, Dock-app, Dockage
aswvdial.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(de) Dockapp -> Dock, Andocke, Documenta
aswvdial.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l de conf -> Connor, contra, Conferencier
aswvdial.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/aswvdial-1.7/COPYING
aswvdial.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary netdown
aswvdial.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary aswvdial
aswvdial.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary netup
aswvdial-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/aswvdial/aswvdial/fileio.c
aswvdial-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/aswvdial/aswvdial/aswvdial.h
aswvdial-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/aswvdial/wmgeneral/list.h
aswvdial-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/aswvdial/wmgeneral/list.c
aswvdial-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/aswvdial/aswvdial/display.c
aswvdial-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/aswvdial/wmgeneral/misc.c
aswvdial-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/aswvdial/aswvdial/main.c
aswvdial-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/aswvdial/aswvdial/misc.c
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 9 errors, 13 warnings.
$

Tom, may you please enlighten us regarding "incorrect-fsf-address" and its
possible impact for Fedora? Which steps have to be taken here? Does it block
the review?

Look here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=684475#c6

The incorrect FSF address doesn't affect the build process or the security of the package in no way. If there was an active upstream project, I would patch the package and send the patch to the maintainers. But in our case, it is impossible. BTW, I'm sure this affects some other packages whose upstream is dead and which are moved through the distribution releases over years.

Well, it would be fine to have a common guideline for it.

There is a similar upstream project in Launchpad:
https://launchpad.net/aswvdial
It reuses the original code and applies a patch to make this WindowMaker dockapp available in the GNOME panel. I could report a bug there, but this wouldn't affect the sources used in my package.

Handling the "incorrect-fsf-address" issue in situations where upstream is dead/non-responsive is ultimately up to the package maintainer. It should be safe for the maintainer to replace the older COPYING file with an updated one (note, this means getting a newer COPYING with the correct address from the FSF website for the same license version, not for a different version of that license), however, if the maintainer chooses not to take that action, it is not considered a blocker. Lifting FE-Legal.

Okay, here we go:

[ DONE ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the 
         build produces. The output should be posted in the review.

[  OK  ] 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.
[  ??  ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[FAILED] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and 
         meet the Licensing Guidelines.
         -> Should be "GPLv2+ and MIT" because of aswvdial/strlcpy.c file
[FAILED] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual 
         license.
         -> Should be "GPLv2+ and MIT" because of aswvdial/strlcpy.c file
[  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.
[  OK  ] 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.
         -> 75cd1aff9392542609e9023f9f24bd37  aswvdial-1.7.tar.bz2
         -> 75cd1aff9392542609e9023f9f24bd37  aswvdial-1.7.tar.bz2.1
[  OK  ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary
         rpms on at least one primary architecture.
[  N/A ] 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.
[  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. Apply 
         common sense.
[  N/A ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by 
         using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly 
         forbidden.
[  N/A ] 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  ] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[  N/A ] 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. (Notable exception: license texts in 
         specific situations)
[  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.
[FAILED] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
         -> $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot} is used
[  OK  ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[  N/A ] 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).
[  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.
[  N/A ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[  N/A ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[  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.
[  N/A ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the 
         base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}
         %{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
[  N/A ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must 
         be removed in the spec if they are built.[20]
[  N/A ] 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.
         -> The program is a dockapp, not a GUI application to be started
            via the menu
[  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.
[  OK  ] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. 


[  N/A ] 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.
[  OK  ] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file 
         should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if 
         available.
[  OK  ] 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.
[ SKIP ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as 
         described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for 
         example.
[  N/A ] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This
         is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. 
[  N/A ] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base 
         package using a fully versioned dependency.
[  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.
[  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.
[  N/A ] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.
         If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.

Thanks for your hints. I've changed the license and replaced the %{buildroot} occurences with the appropriate variable.

Spec URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/aswvdial.spec
SRPM URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/aswvdial-1.7-2.fc15.src.rpm

Koji scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3086040

Due to start problems in F15 based on a missing font, I've added an extra dependency, which isn't picked up automatically.  Release tag is not bumped, the links are still valid.

(In reply to comment #6)
> [FAILED] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and 
>          meet the Licensing Guidelines.
>          -> Should be "GPLv2+ and MIT" because of aswvdial/strlcpy.c file


Just a small correction:
The License field should reflect the license of the files in the binary package, not the single licenses of all involved source files. As MIT is compatible with GPLv2+, and as the code of strlcpy.c is linked into aswvdial, we get a binary licensed under GPLv2+ (GPLv2+ + MIT = GPLv2+). 
If strlcpy.c were linked and packaged as a separate binary, this binary would be MIT-licensed and "GPLv2+ and MIT" would be correct.


Also, the %optflags are not applied. Simply add OPT="%{optflags}" to the make statement to fix this.

Yes, you're completely right, Martin. I'm very sorry for the licensing thing,
Mario. And please don't forget to apply the opt. flags (as mentioned in comment
#9) by using the same style as in the rest of the spec file:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS

OK, I've removed the MIT license again and added CFLAGS.

Spec URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/aswvdial.spec
SRPM URL:
http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/aswvdial-1.7-3.fc15.src.rpm

Koji scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3102572

If you use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, you must use $RPM_OPT_FLAGS - see comment #10.

Additionally, the opt. flags are still not honored when looking to build.log,
because you applied them not as suggested as in comment #9. Please replace

  make CFLAGS='%{optflags}' %{?_smp_mflags}

by

  make OPT="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" %{?_smp_mflags}

which makes it working and uses the same style as the rest of your *.spec.

Thanks again. The files have been updated:

Spec URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/aswvdial.spec
SRPM URL:
http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/aswvdial-1.7-4.fc15.src.rpm

Issues pointed out where solved, thus: APPROVED.

You might want to correct the following new minor thing after import in GIT:
aswvdial.src:18: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 18, tab: line 1)

Thanks for approving.
(In reply to comment #14)
> You might want to correct the following new minor thing after import in GIT:
> aswvdial.src:18: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 18, tab: line 1)

OK, will be fixed in Git once it is created.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name:         aswvdial
Short Description:    Dockapp for wvdial
Owners:               mariobl
Branches:             f15 f14
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

aswvdial-1.7-4.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/aswvdial-1.7-4.fc15

aswvdial-1.7-4.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/aswvdial-1.7-4.fc14

aswvdial-1.7-4.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 testing repository.

aswvdial-1.7-4.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository.

aswvdial-1.7-4.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.