- rpmlint OK
- package must be named according to Guidelines OK
- spec file name must match the base package %{name} OK
- package must meet the Packaging Guidelines OK
- package must be licensed with Fedora approved license OK
- license field must match actual license OK
- text of the license in its own file must be included in %doc OK
- sources must match the upstream source OK
- package MUST successfully compile and build OK
 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3425127
- architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla OK
- build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires OK
- handle locales properly with %find_lang macro OK
- shared library files must call ldconfig in %post(un) OK
- packages must NOT bundle system libraries OK
- package must own all directories that it creates OK
- permissions on files must be set properly OK
- package must consistently use macros OK
- package must contain code, or permissable content OK
- large documentation must go in a -doc OK
- %doc must not affect the runtime of the application OK
- header files must be in a -devel package OK
- static libraries must be in a -static package OK
- library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel OK
- devel package usually require base package OK
- packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives OK
- GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file OK
- packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages OK

I have few proposals, but nothing is blocking the review.

Release: 0.1 is unusual, but you are upstream, so probably aware of it.

Rpmlint:
rpmlint lies, I can download your source tarball. The fsf address should be changed according to guidelines. You should create ticket for upstream (you) and fix it in some future release of upstream package.

These lines are not needed since F-14, but they are still needed in RHEL-5 and older:
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) 
clean section
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in install section

APPROVED

(In reply to comment #1)
> Release: 0.1 is unusual, but you are upstream, so probably aware of it.

0.1 means rc1, 1.4.0-1 will be stable release (logic stolen from util-linux:-), this ensures that first stable release will override release candidates.

> Rpmlint:
> rpmlint lies, I can download your source tarball. The fsf address should be
> changed according to guidelines. You should create ticket for upstream (you)
> and fix it in some future release of upstream package.

NACK. this is nonsense, sorry.

> These lines are not needed since F-14, but they are still needed in RHEL-5 and
> older:
> BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) 
> clean section
> %defattr(-,root,root,-)
> rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in install section

ok, I'll remove them.


Thanks!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: cryptsetup
Short Description: A utility for setting up encrypted file systems
Owners: mbroz
Branches:
InitialCC:

[rename cryptsetup-luks to cryptsetup]

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: cryptsetup
Short description: A utility for setting up encrypted disks
Owners: mbroz

[Please can you change short description for package to "* encrypted disks" (filesystems is misleading). Sorry, I missed this problem in initial import - but it should be correct for the future (file system encryption is ecryptfs, so better not to confuse users.) Spec is already fixed in git.]

Change made.