$ rpmlint -i -v *
spec2scl.src: I: checking
spec2scl.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) specfiles -> spec files, spec-files, specifiable
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

spec2scl.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US specfiles -> spec files, spec-files, specifiable
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

spec2scl.src: I: checking-url https://bitbucket.org/bkabrda/spec2scl/ (timeout 10 seconds)
spec2scl.src: I: checking-url http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/s/spec2scl/spec2scl-0.3.1.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds)
spec2scl.noarch: I: checking
spec2scl.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) specfiles -> spec files, spec-files, specifiable
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

spec2scl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US specfiles -> spec files, spec-files, specifiable
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

spec2scl.noarch: I: checking-url https://bitbucket.org/bkabrda/spec2scl/ (timeout 10 seconds)
spec2scl.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/spec2scl/settings.py
spec2scl.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary spec2scl
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.

spec2scl.spec: I: checking-url http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/s/spec2scl/spec2scl-0.3.1.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.


The spelling errors and the missing manpage could be ignored, the latter one could be worth a hint to the upstream developer, if a manpage would make sense.

The file /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/spec2scl/settings.py is empty, although settings.pyo seems to contain some data. My knowledge about Python bytecode is poor, could you explain that please? If the rpmlint message is false positive, your package is ready for a full review.

Thanks for taking the review. Just BTW, I'm the only upstream developer, so if anything seems wrong, you can complain to me :)

- Manpage would certainly make a sense, I will consider adding it in a future version.
- The settings file is not needed now, true. I'm used to putting these in all my projects, because I know I'll eventually need them. It may be empty now, but it is already required by another file (it's useless, I know...), so excluding it would require to also patch the other file. So I'd rather keep it where it is. As for the settings.pyo file, that is not empty because all bytecode files contain at least full path to the origin file.

I hope that this explains everything good.

May I ask some "devil's advocate" questions, you will likely hate me for?

- What are SCLs? This package's description reads Greek to me. The upstream homepage doesn't help much further either.

- I am inclined to believe "SCL" very likely is trademarked. At least, a quick check of DPMS returns a long list of trademarks, a trademark laywer would have to go through (IANAL)

- What is this package supposed to be useful for rsp. which problem is it aiming at? I do not understand it nor do I see how it would be useful to fedora users.

(In reply to comment #3)
> May I ask some "devil's advocate" questions, you will likely hate me for?
> 
> - What are SCLs? This package's description reads Greek to me. The upstream
> homepage doesn't help much further either.
> 

https://fedorahosted.org/SoftwareCollections/

> - I am inclined to believe "SCL" very likely is trademarked. At least, a
> quick check of DPMS returns a long list of trademarks, a trademark laywer
> would have to go through (IANAL)
> 

Py is a trademark and we have python-py :) BTW there is already a scl-utils package, so I'm not the first one.

> - What is this package supposed to be useful for rsp. which problem is it
> aiming at? I do not understand it nor do I see how it would be useful to
> fedora users.

I'm using Fedora and I need the package. I'm not the only one - do you need a list of users who want to use this package?

(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > May I ask some "devil's advocate" questions, you will likely hate me for?
> > 
> > - What are SCLs? This package's description reads Greek to me. The upstream
> > homepage doesn't help much further either.
> > 
> 
> https://fedorahosted.org/SoftwareCollections/

This is exactly what I was referring to in my previous comment: 

A lot of words talking about Software Collections, but no definition of what they actually are and no explantation of how they are supposed to interact with rpm.

> > - I am inclined to believe "SCL" very likely is trademarked. At least, a
> > quick check of DPMS returns a long list of trademarks, a trademark laywer
> > would have to go through (IANAL)
> > 
> 
> Py is a trademark and we have python-py :) BTW there is already a scl-utils
> package, so I'm not the first one.

Well, this is about SCL, not Py - I see SCL is trademarked in several Nizza classes which could be relevant here.
 
> > - What is this package supposed to be useful for rsp. which problem is it
> > aiming at? I do not understand it nor do I see how it would be useful to
> > fedora users.
> 
> I'm using Fedora and I need the package. I'm not the only one - do you need
> a list of users who want to use this package?

I am having no doubts any package, no matter what it is, will find its users ;)

However, provided there is no actual documentation on what this package actually does, ... any guess of mine would not be fair.

(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > (In reply to comment #3)
> > > May I ask some "devil's advocate" questions, you will likely hate me for?
> > > 
> > > - What are SCLs? This package's description reads Greek to me. The upstream
> > > homepage doesn't help much further either.
> > > 
> > 
> > https://fedorahosted.org/SoftwareCollections/
> 
> This is exactly what I was referring to in my previous comment: 
> 
> A lot of words talking about Software Collections, but no definition of what
> they actually are and no explantation of how they are supposed to interact
> with rpm.
> 

Then I guess you must be overlooking the documentation: https://fedorahosted.org/SoftwareCollections/#Documentation

Just BTW, have you tried Google? Searching for "Software Collections", the first page gives this link:

http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html/Software_Collections_Guide/index.html

which is exactly the same as on the fedorahosted site.

> > > - I am inclined to believe "SCL" very likely is trademarked. At least, a
> > > quick check of DPMS returns a long list of trademarks, a trademark laywer
> > > would have to go through (IANAL)
> > > 
> > 
> > Py is a trademark and we have python-py :) BTW there is already a scl-utils
> > package, so I'm not the first one.
> 
> Well, this is about SCL, not Py - I see SCL is trademarked in several Nizza
> classes which could be relevant here.
>  

Yes, this discussion is about scl. I'm just wondering whether you check your own packages for this. Just looking at the list of your fedora packages, these are registered trademarks, according to my quick search: inventor, gts, rt3 (sorry I don't have the time to do a full search for all your packages). So that makes me puzzled - why don't you apply these checks to your own packages? That might be a good place to start.

> > > - What is this package supposed to be useful for rsp. which problem is it
> > > aiming at? I do not understand it nor do I see how it would be useful to
> > > fedora users.
> > 
> > I'm using Fedora and I need the package. I'm not the only one - do you need
> > a list of users who want to use this package?
> 
> I am having no doubts any package, no matter what it is, will find its users
> ;)
> 
> However, provided there is no actual documentation on what this package
> actually does, ... any guess of mine would not be fair.

The package says that it helps to convert specfiles to be SCL/software collections-ready. Googling for Software Collections, first page gives you a detailed guide on docs.fedoraproject.org. I believe I can add a link to the two sites mentioned above into the readme for users who don't like googling :) But please don't tell me there is no information about SCLs.

OK, let's have a look at the package from a technical point of view:

---------------------------------
key:

[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
---------------------------------

[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
    MIT
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
    $ sha256sum *
    e91ba96c47d112d2572258bb89eee0c03aff95afa0295c794831d48cc3fd25ec  spec2scl-0.3.1.tar.gz
    e91ba96c47d112d2572258bb89eee0c03aff95afa0295c794831d48cc3fd25ec  spec2scl-0.3.1.tar.gz.orig

[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture.
[.] 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.
[+] 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.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[.] 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.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] 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.
[+] 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.
[+] 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)
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] 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).
[+] 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.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.
[.] 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.
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.


[.] 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.
[.] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
    See Koji build above (which uses Mock anyway).
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
[.] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
[.] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
[.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency.
[.] 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.
[.] 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.
[.] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.


No further objections from my side, that's why:

----------------

PACKAGE APPROVED

----------------

Thank you for the review!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: spec2scl
Short Description: Convert RPM specfiles to be SCL ready
Owners: bkabrda
Branches: f18 f17 el6
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Blocking FE-LEGAL

Rationale: I suspect this package to be violating several trademarks, because "SCL" seems to be a trademark in several Nice classes which could be relevant here.

(In reply to comment #10)
> Blocking FE-LEGAL
> 
> Rationale: I suspect this package to be violating several trademarks,
> because "SCL" seems to be a trademark in several Nice classes which could be
> relevant here.

Ralf,
thank you for your concern. The name for utility came from co-operation with legal, therefore legal can only approve it again.

Clearing FE-Legal block, spec2scl name has been cleared by Red Hat Legal.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: spec2scl
New Branches: el5
Owners: bkabrda
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).