I also packed the two available level sets:

luola-stdlevels:
Spec URL: http://jor.netne.net/files/luola-stdlevels.spec
SRPM URL: http://jor.netne.net/files/luola-stdlevels-6.0-1.fc16.src.rpm

luola-nostalgia:
Spec URL: http://jor.netne.net/files/luola-nostalgia.spec
SRPM URL: http://jor.netne.net/files/luola-nostalgia-1.2-1.fc16.src.rpm

one pkg per review please (ie, submit the new level pkgs separately)

Done:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817601
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817602

Explicit library requires are forbidden. Drop them.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires

**

 cp %{_sourcedir}/%{name}.6.gz %{_builddir}
This should read
 cp -p %{SOURCE1} .

**

echo -e "8c8\n< Icon=luola.png\n---\n> Icon=luola" | patch luola.desktop -

If you are patching, please create a proper patch.

**

Please use the -p flag with install, so that time stamps are preserved.

**

install -D %{name}.desktop %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop -m 0644

This is wrong. You need to use desktop-file-install (or desktop-file-validate).
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Desktop_files

**

Are you a member of the packagers group?

Thank you very much. I think I fixed all your points, I updated the files.

I'm not member of the packagers group (yet).

OK. As it happens, I'm a sponsor and I am willing to sponsor you if you show me your knowing of the Fedora guidelines, most importantly
 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
In addition to the Packaging Guidelines, there are a bunch of language / application specific guidelines that are linked to in the Packaging Guidelines.

Here are some tricks of the trade:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues

I will sponsor you if you have at least one other submission and perform a couple of informal reviews of packages of other people.

Please review only packages *not* marked with FE-NEEDSPONSOR. I will have to do the full formal review after you to check that you have got everything correctly. Once I have sponsored you you will be able to do formal reviews of your own.

Thank you. I'd like to be sponsored by you. By now, I added one more package and one informal review (is the style ok?).
Package: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818991
Review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845769#c2

Hold your horses. You were missing for almost four months, what was the reason?

The informal review is not ok, it's supposed to be a full fledged review - it's only called informal because you don't have the right to approve reviews just yet since you're not a packager. A proper review is such as the one Mikolaj Izdebski did in bug #845769.

And we're not that picky about spellings in Fedora - if it's proper, understandable English, it's OK. So no need to fuss about color/colour, meter/metre and so on.

Please perform two fully fledged informal reviews. I'll have a look at the package soon.

Not to be a pain, but: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Summary_and_description

"
Please put personal preferences aside and use American English spelling in the summary and description. Packages can contain additional translated summary/description for supported Non-English languages, if available.
"

(In reply to comment #9)
> Not to be a pain, but:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Summary_and_description
> 
> "Please put personal preferences aside and use American English spelling in
> the summary and description. Packages can contain additional translated
> summary/description for supported Non-English languages, if available."

Still, the statement is rather mild (a SHOULD, not a MUST). If the rule really was reinforced, there'd be a lot more language policing around. I'd spend my resources on improving the summaries and descriptions that are found lacking or are in broken English.

I am triaging old review tickets.  I can't promise a review if you reply, but by closing out the stale tickets we can devote extra attention to the ones which aren't stale.

This fails to build for me.  Here is a scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5323253

Ping! Are you still interrested in this review?

No response. Closing. Feel free to reopen if you want to continue.