I'll take this review

octave-odepkg-debuginfo.x86_64: E: non-readable /usr/src/debug/odepkg-0.8.2/src/daskr/ddaskr.f 0660L
octave-odepkg-debuginfo.x86_64: E: non-readable /usr/src/debug/odepkg-0.8.2/src/daskr/dlinpk.f 0660L
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings.


All standard standard errors for octave apart from the wierd permissions.

Can you provide a small license breakdown comment for the two licenses.

Apart from that this meets the octave guidelines and is good to go. APPROVED.


Package Review
==============

Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[ ]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[-]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: 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 is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SRPMS
     /review-octave-odepkg/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
     be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
     Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
     in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
     --requires).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
     Note: Source0 (odepkg-0.8.2.tar.gz)
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: octave-odepkg-0.8.2-1.fc16.src.rpm
          octave-odepkg-0.8.2-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm
          octave-odepkg-debuginfo-0.8.2-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm
octave-odepkg.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided octave-forge
octave-odepkg.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/octave/packages/odepkg-0.8.2/packinfo/.autoload
octave-odepkg.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/octave/packages/odepkg-0.8.2/packinfo/.autoload
octave-odepkg.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
octave-odepkg-debuginfo.x86_64: E: non-readable /usr/src/debug/odepkg-0.8.2/src/daskr/ddaskr.f 0660L
octave-odepkg-debuginfo.x86_64: E: non-readable /usr/src/debug/odepkg-0.8.2/src/daskr/dlinpk.f 0660L
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint octave-odepkg-debuginfo octave-odepkg
octave-odepkg-debuginfo.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
octave-odepkg-debuginfo.x86_64: E: non-readable /usr/src/debug/odepkg-0.8.2/src/daskr/ddaskr.f 0660L
octave-odepkg-debuginfo.x86_64: E: non-readable /usr/src/debug/odepkg-0.8.2/src/daskr/dlinpk.f 0660L
octave-odepkg.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided octave-forge
octave-odepkg.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/octave/packages/odepkg-0.8.2/packinfo/.autoload
octave-odepkg.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/octave/packages/odepkg-0.8.2/packinfo/.autoload
octave-odepkg.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
octave-odepkg-0.8.2-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    
    /bin/sh
    libatlas.so.3()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcruft.so.0()(64bit)
    libf77blas.so.3()(64bit)
    libfftw3.so.3()(64bit)
    libfftw3f.so.3()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.0.0)(64bit)
    libgfortran.so.3()(64bit)
    libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.0)(64bit)
    libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.4)(64bit)
    liblapack.so.3()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    liboctave.so.0()(64bit)
    liboctinterp.so.0()(64bit)
    libquadmath.so.0()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    octave
    octave(api) = api-v45+}
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

octave-odepkg-debuginfo-0.8.2-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    



Provides
--------
octave-odepkg-0.8.2-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm:
    
    dldsolver.oct()(64bit)
    octave-odepkg = 0.8.2-1.fc16
    octave-odepkg(x86-64) = 0.8.2-1.fc16

octave-odepkg-debuginfo-0.8.2-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm:
    
    octave-odepkg-debuginfo = 0.8.2-1.fc16
    octave-odepkg-debuginfo(x86-64) = 0.8.2-1.fc16



MD5-sum check
-------------
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/octave/odepkg-0.8.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : c190f5ca3a1497ac8a39bcf71d5292729d9f6f285d9a078639faa77d02b31cff
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c190f5ca3a1497ac8a39bcf71d5292729d9f6f285d9a078639faa77d02b31cff


Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16
Buildroot used: fedora-16-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n octave-odepkg

* Wed Oct 24 2012 Ankur Sinha <ankursinha AT fedoraproject DOT org> 0.8.2-2
- Added comment for the two licenses
- Correct permissions



http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/octave-odepkg/octave-odepkg.spec

http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/octave-odepkg/octave-odepkg-0.8.2-2.fc17.src.rpm

Thanks for the review Brendan!

Warm regards,
Ankur

Hi Brendan,

Could you please finish the review so I could build the package? :)

Thanks,
Ankur

Hi Ankur,
  one small suggestion. You can drop the initial article from the summary.

That is

Summary: Package for solving ordinary differential equations and more

The reason why I am interested in this package is that I create a spec file for odepkg last July and this is my only difference.

Brendan, if you wish I can finish the review but such as it is the review what is missing is your approval. :-)

(In reply to comment #5)
> Hi Ankur,
>   one small suggestion. You can drop the initial article from the summary.
> 
> That is
> 
> Summary: Package for solving ordinary differential equations and more
> 
> The reason why I am interested in this package is that I create a spec file
> for odepkg last July and this is my only difference.
> 

Hi Jose, 

Thanks for pointing it out. I'll make the change before committing to SCM :)

Warm regards,
Ankur

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: octave-odepkg
Short Description: Package for solving ordinary differential equations and more
Owners: ankursinha
Branches: f17 f18
InitialCC:

I am sorry Ankur if I gave the impression that I have approved the package. :-(

I would do it if the review was not taken but for the moment Brendan is the review owner and so I will no step over him.

Apologies again.

Sorry. I must have not set the flag.

Sorry, yes Brendan you did it was me who did not saw it.

I am sorry all for the confusion, and I am glad that the review is done.

I thought I saw the flag set. The fedora review flag is + now. Should be okay. No worries folks :)

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: octave-odepkg
Short Description: Package for solving ordinary differential equations and more
Owners: ankursinha
Branches: f17 f18
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

octave-odepkg-0.8.2-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/octave-odepkg-0.8.2-2.fc17

octave-odepkg-0.8.2-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/octave-odepkg-0.8.2-2.fc18

octave-odepkg-0.8.2-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.

octave-odepkg-0.8.2-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.

octave-odepkg-0.8.2-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.