Bug 177993

I'll pick this one up, changing to FE-REVIEW (feel free to assign the bug to me)

Builds cleanly on fedora-devel-i386 and in mock

Spec file does have one miror format inconsitency, we 'always' put the %doc line
just below the %defattr line, and not after the binary

Also one error in the spec file, the mandir for "man 1 foo" is
%{_mandir}/man1/foo and not %{_mandir}/1/foo; In the spec file you have:
%install:
install -d %{buildroot}/%{_mandir}/1
install -m644 %{name}.1 %{buildroot}/%{_mandir}/1
%files:
%{_mandir}/*/*

Should be:
%install:
install -d %{buildroot}/%{_mandir}/man1
install -m644 %{name}.1 %{buildroot}/%{_mandir}/man1

rpmlint is quiet and has no output.

The %install section is missing as first line:
rm -rf %{buildroot}

Its customary (and according to standards) to include this.

Formal review list:

MUST review items:
- Builds cleanly on FC5 devel.
- Source included matches upsteam source (md5sum)
- Package name meets guidelines
- spec file name is in %{name}.spec format
- Licence (GPL) is fedora extra's compatible & is included
- Spec file is in (american) english
- Does not list BuildRequires that are excepted in the package guidelines
- All build dependencies are listed
- No ldconfig needed
- All files have proper permissions
- Package is not relocatable
- No duplicate files in %files section
- No missing files in %files section (but does have a lost manpage)
- Has a proper %clean section with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
- Uses macro's described in PackagingGuidelines
- No entries in %doc that are required for standard program operation
- No -devel package needed
- No directory-ownerships needed
- No gui app, so no need for a desktop file

Should items:
- Includes upstream licence file (LICENSE)
- No insane scriplets
- No unnescesarry requires
- Mock builds correctly

Please address the above mentioned few minor errors and post a new srpm and i'll
do the formal review checklist again.

* Mon Jan 17 2006 Paul Wouters <paul> 1.0-2
- Fixed install target for man page and cleaning before install

ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/fetchlog/binaries/fedora/4/SRPMS/fetchlog.spec
ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/fetchlog/binaries/fedora/4/SRPMS/fetchlog-1.0-2.src.rpm

I've always put the doc/man entries last in the files section, because I tend to
focus on the binaries and libraries first, and never had a complaint about that :)
The other two errors have been fixed.

Guess other people never noticed, or aren't as perfectionistic as me, first spec
file i've seen in fedora with doc not bellow defattr, but its definatly not a
blocker, just matter of taste i guess :-)

Manpage and clean section are conform standards now too, still builds and mocks
cleanly too.

Formal check list:

MUST review items:
- Builds cleanly on FC5 devel.
- Source included matches upsteam source (md5sum)
- Package name meets guidelines
- spec file name is in %{name}.spec format
- Licence (GPL) is fedora extra's compatible & is included
- Spec file is in (american) english
- Does not list BuildRequires that are excepted in the package guidelines
- All build dependencies are listed
- No ldconfig needed
- All files have proper permissions
- Package is not relocatable
- No duplicate files in %files section
- No missing files in %files section
- Has a proper %clean section with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
- Uses macro's described in PackagingGuidelines
- No entries in %doc that are required for standard program operation
- No -devel package needed
- No directory-ownerships needed
- No gui app, so no need for a desktop file

Should items:
- Includes upstream licence file (LICENSE)
- No insane scriplets
- No unnescesarry requires
- Mock builds correctly

Thanks for the updates, FE-APPROVED