I've noticed bro for a long time, since last year when I tracked down the netdisco package(amid those packages with obsoleted version software packaged).

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

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated



Issues:
=======
- Permissions on files are set properly.
  Note: See rpmlint output
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions


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

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "Unknown or generated", "BSD (4 clause)". 6 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck:

BSD (4 clause)
--------------
pysubnettree-0.23/patricia.c
pysubnettree-0.23/patricia.h

Unknown or generated
--------------------
pysubnettree-0.23/SubnetTree.cc
pysubnettree-0.23/SubnetTree.h
pysubnettree-0.23/SubnetTree.py
pysubnettree-0.23/SubnetTree_wrap.cc
pysubnettree-0.23/setup.py
pysubnettree-0.23/test.py

[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
     in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

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

Generic:
[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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

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

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: pysubnettree-0.23-1.fc21.i686.rpm
          pysubnettree-0.23-1.fc21.src.rpm
pysubnettree.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libpcap -> slipcase
pysubnettree.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subnets -> subsets, sublets, sub nets
pysubnettree.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Lookups -> Hookups, Lockups, Look ups
pysubnettree.i686: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/_SubnetTree.so 0775L
pysubnettree.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libpcap -> slipcase
pysubnettree.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subnets -> subsets, sublets, sub nets
pysubnettree.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Lookups -> Hookups, Lockups, Look ups
pysubnettree.src:9: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
pysubnettree.src:9: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint pysubnettree
pysubnettree.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libpcap -> slipcase
pysubnettree.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subnets -> subsets, sublets, sub nets
pysubnettree.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Lookups -> Hookups, Lockups, Look ups
pysubnettree.i686: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/_SubnetTree.so 0775L
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
pysubnettree (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6
    libgcc_s.so.1
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)
    libm.so.6
    libpthread.so.0
    libpython2.7.so.1.0
    libstdc++.so.6
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)
    python(abi)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
pysubnettree:
    pysubnettree
    pysubnettree(x86-32)



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
pysubnettree: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/_SubnetTree.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/bro/pysubnettree/archive/v0.23.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 506cc39940a03d5414c386c3a34f66d6531e5d5ad7165b9ae37fda025685a865
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 506cc39940a03d5414c386c3a34f66d6531e5d5ad7165b9ae37fda025685a865


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/bin/fedora-review -rvn pysubnettree-0.23-1.fc20.src.rpm
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

----------------------------
1. Fix all rpmlint issues

2. You can download the source from pypi:

https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pysubnettree

Thanks for the review.

* Sun Jun 22 2014 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 0.23-2
- Use PyPI as SOURCE0 for now
- Fix permission

Updated files:
Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/pysubnettree.spec
SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/pysubnettree-0.23-2.fc20.src.rpm

Replace %{python_sitearch} with %{python2_sitearch}

PACKAGE APPROVED.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: pysubnettree
Short Description: A Python Module for CIDR Lookups
Owners: fab
Branches: f20 el6 epel7
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

pysubnettree-0.23-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pysubnettree-0.23-3.fc20

pysubnettree-0.23-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.

pysubnettree-0.23-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.