One issue up front: You didn't upload a source package built from the spec file (release -6), so besides the tarball you uploaded, I downloaded the latest one beside it (-3) and the latest one I found on a Fedora mirror (-5). After unpacking I ended up with three tarballs of the same name, but different contents and I found yet another different one in my rpmbuild directory (probably from the old review). As I mentioned in the original review of this package (cf. comment 9 in bug #511276) you must bump the version of the tarball if you change the contents. This is especially important to not make tools checking tarballs used to build packages against what is available upstream (i.e. at your site) warn unnecessarily.

Items marked "GOOD" or "PASS" fulfil the guidelines or they don't apply to this package.
Items marked "CHECK" aren't covered by the guidelines but you should check and fix them anyway in my opinion.
Items marked "BAD" violate the guidelines in some point and need to be fixed.

- BAD: rpmlint run on comoonics-base-py-0.1-5.src.rpm flags issues:

    nils@gibraltar:~/devel/reviews/fedora/comoonics-base-py> rpmlint comoonics-base-py-0.1-5.src.rpm
    comoonics-base-py.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) baselibraries -> base libraries, base-libraries, libraries
    comoonics-base-py.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US baselibraries -> base libraries, base-libraries, libraries

  -> correct spelling

    comoonics-base-py.src: W: file-size-mismatch comoonics-base-py-0.1.tar.gz = 40620, http://www.open-sharedroot.org/development/comoonics-base-py/comoonics-base-py-0.1.tar.gz = 39598
    1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

  -> bump tarball version each time you change contents, see above

- GOOD/CHECK: named according to naming guidelines, but doesn't have a dist tag (cf. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Using_the_.25.7B.3Fdist.7D_Tag). I found that you have many RPM packages for different distributions on your site, all of which only have a number as the release field. Adding a dist tag to the release could help distinguishing the packages for different distributions from each other.
- GOOD: spec file name matches package name
- BAD/CHECK: doesn't match python packaging guidelines (cf. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python):
  - BAD: as your package is for python 2.x, it needs to require python2-devel for building
  - CHECK: Fedora >= 13 (and EL >= 6) sets %python_sitelib, you could set it only for older releases like this:

    %if ! (0%{?fedora} > 12 || 0%{?rhel} > 5)
    %{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")}
    %{!?python_sitearch: %global python_sitearch %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib(1))")}
    %endif

  - GOOD: includes source and byte-compiled python files properly

  I think you don't target python 3.x just yet, so we can dispense with the guidelines related to that. Mind that sometime in the future, 3.x might become the default and you would need to adapt your package in that case.

- GOOD: licensed well (GPLv3+)
- BAD: license field (GPLv2+) doesn't match actual license
- GOOD: package ships license text as %doc
- BAD: package is written in American English, but has spelling errors (see rpmlint output above)
- GOOD: spec file is legible
- BAD: sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, see above ;-)
- GOOD: package successfully builds into noarch package in mock for Fedora 15
- GOOD: Lists all build requirements
- PASS: no locale specific files
- PASS: no shared library files included
- GOOD: doesn't bundle system libraries
- PASS: package not marked as relocatable
- GOOD: package owns all directories that it creates
- GOOD: doesn't list files more than once
- GOOD: permissions on files set properly
- GOOD/CHECK: The package uses macros consistently. The python interpreter is referenced directly though, this might require fixing if python 3.x should become the default in the future.
- GOOD: package contains code
- PASS: no large documentation
- GOOD: %doc doesn't affect runtime
- PASS: no header files
- PASS: no static libraries
- PASS: doesn't contains libraries with suffix
- PASS: no -devel subpackage
- PASS: no libtool archive files on account of no libraries 
- PASS: no GUI app
- GOOD: doesn't own files or directories owned by other packages
- GOOD: all file names are valid UTF-8

All negative passes should now be fixed.

I've also taken the last sources from comoonics-base-py-0.1-5 from fc15 and updated the uploaded one.

- GOOD: rpmlint run on current spec file/SRPM built from it doesn't flag any issues.
- GOOD: dist tag added
- GOOD: matches python packaging guidelines:
  - GOOD: requires python2-devel for building
  - GOOD: uses supplied %python_sitelib macro on Fedora >= 13
- GOOD: license field matches actual license
- GOOD: package is written in American English (spelling errors corrected)
- GOOD: sources used to build the package match the upstream source

This package is APPROVED.

Please continue with your part of the package review process -- cf. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Contributor -- your next step (#8) is to make the SCM admin request to get the package out of retirement/undeprecated for Rawhide/devel and the branch created for Fedora 16. And take care of that if you roll new tarballs that they get new versions. Thanks!

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: comoonics-base-py
New Branches: rawhide
Owners: elcody02

This package has been orphaned but is still needed for the packages comoonics-cdsl-py and comoonics-cluster-py as requirement.
I've taken ownership of this package and would like to request a retirement of this package for rawhide fc16.

Thanks Marc.

This ticket should remain on the "Package Review" component. Mind that you don't need a new branch for "devel" (Rawhide), but for Fedora 16 -- note the pkgdb entry: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/comoonics-base-py

Unretired rawhide, please take ownership in pkgdb.

Marc, as Fedora 16 is already branched away from Rawhide -- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/Branched -- you need to request an F-16 branch for this package, then build and issue an update (of type "newpackage") to get the package back in for all Fedora versions.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: comoonics-base-py
Short Description: base libs for comoonics-cdsl-py and comoonics-cluster-py
Owners: elcody02
Branches: f16
InitialCC:

This package has been orphaned but is still needed for the packages
comoonics-cdsl-py and comoonics-cluster-py as requirement.
I've taken ownership of this package and would like to request a retirement/rebranch of
this package for fc16.

Thanks Marc.

*** Bug 749562 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: comoonics-base-py
Short Description: base libs for comoonics-cdsl-py and comoonics-cluster-py
Owners: elcody02
Branches: f16 f17
InitialCC:

Reveiw flag should be set to + if approved, and the reviewer should take
ownership.

Sorry, I should have read the whole BZ.  This already exists and is owned
for devel and f15, please file a Package Change request to get f16 and f17
branches.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: comoonics-base-py
New Branches: f16 f17
Owners: elcody02
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

I've had a look into the git repo. Still only the dead.package file. Do I have to  do something? Or just be patient?

Marc, you should have commit access to the git repo. Just git rm dead.package and treat it as if it were a new package from that point onward, following these steps (start at step 9):

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/New_package_process_for_existing_contributors

Ok, no problem. I'll follow the instructions.

Thanks.

Assuming this is fixed (no activity in 4 years), closing.