This is an informal review

[X] rpmlint must be run on every package.
    rpmlint ufl-python-0.1-0.1.pre.fc15.noarch.rpm ufl-python-0.1-0.1.pre.fc15.src.rpm 
    ufl-python.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
    ufl-python.noarch: W: no-documentation
    2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

    Ok: the README file is empty

[X] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.

[X] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
      %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.

[X] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.

[X] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
      Licensing Guidelines.
      The license is GPLv3

[X] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.

[NA] 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.

[X] The spec file must be written in American English.

[X] The spec file for the package MUST be legible.

[X] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
      provided in the spec URL.
      Upstream md5sum: 80d5c06a88a854898d4083ad06ffb4d3
      Package md5sum:  80d5c06a88a854898d4083ad06ffb4d3

[X] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
     least one primary architecture.
     Build successful on Fedora 15 x86_64

[NA] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
      architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
      ExcludeArch.

[X] 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.

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

[NA] 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.

[X] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.

[NA] 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.

[X] 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.

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

[X] Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
     executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
     %defattr(...) line.

[X] Each package must consistently use macros.

[X] The package must contain code, or permissable content.

[NA] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.

[NA] 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.

[NA] Header files must be in a -devel package.

[NA] Static libraries must be in a -static package.

[NA] 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.

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

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

[NA] 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.

[X] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
      packages.

[X] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

I didn't find any problem in the package.

Thanks for the review.

@Sébastien, now that you are packager, maybe you could finish the review ;-)

That's right. Fabian, do you still plan to package this?

Yes, I do.

Ok, I'm taking the review for real.

Just noticed two small issues:
- The source files refer to AUTHORS, but this file is not present
- There is no separate license file

You should tell upstream about these issues (if the project is still active), but they are not blocking.

The package is approved.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: ufl-python
Short Description: A Python implementation of Universal Foundation Libraries
Owners: fab
Branches: f18 f17 f16
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).