This is a problem which prevents things from installing:
E: xaos info-dir-file /usr/share/info/dir

Since this is a GUI app, it would be good to have a desktop file.

Most of the files aren't writable by root.

I've not seen %doc --parents before, and can't find a reference.  Do you have
one handy?

However, one huge problem with this software is that I can't seem to make it run
in anything but text mode.  It seems to need DGA for any graphics, and that
seems to require root.  Unfortunately it won't run for me even as root.  Is
there any way to get this software to run graphically?  I seem to recall running
it some years ago.

Review:
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.  License text included in package.
* source files match upstream:
   8df634737b276f9f172060f3ffc489be  XaoS-3.2.1.tar.gz
   8df634737b276f9f172060f3ffc489be  XaoS-3.2.1.tar.gz-srpm
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
X rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   xaos = 3.2.1-1.fc5
  =
   /bin/sh
   /sbin/install-info
   libX11.so.6
   libXxf86dga.so.1
   libXxf86vm.so.1
   libaa.so.1
   libgpm.so.1
   libncurses.so.5
   libpng12.so.0
   libslang.so.2
   libz.so.1
* no shared libraries are present.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
X file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* scriptlets present and sane. (info file installation)
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
X a GUI app, but no desktop file.

I found that if you add BR: libXt-devel, the X11 driver is built and works fine.

Re: --parents
I can't find a reference either, stupid google doesn't let me search
for --parents. I found it in an another spec file, but I don't remember which.

(In reply to comment #2)
> I found that if you add BR: libXt-devel, the X11 driver is built and works fine.
Ok

I added an icon and a desktop file.

I made all files root-writable using:
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_prefix} -print0 -exec chmod u+rw '{}' ';'

http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/5/i386/SRPMS.gemi/xaos-3.2.1-2.src.rpm

(In reply to comment #3)
> I made all files root-writable using:
> find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_prefix} -print0 -exec chmod u+rw '{}' ';'

Won't be easier to change defattr(-,root,root,-) with defattr(644,root,root,-) ?

%defattr(644,root,root,-)
[snip]
%attr(755,root,root) {_bindir}/*
[snip]

For consistency it may be good to change the $RPM_BUILD_ROOT variable - as it's
the only variable - with the %{buildroot} macro.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-f3d77b27a5d29dfc1f5600ef3fc836f2e317badf

It's personal choice with the %defattr thing; I personally don't like to clutter
the %files list.

The choice of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT (and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS) is completely up to the
packager; the only requirement is that you must be consistent.  As there is no
use of %{buildroot} or %{optflags}, it is perfectly fine to use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.

The updated package builds fine; the X11 driver is there and it shows up in the
menu.

APPROVED

Built on FC4, FC5 and FC6. Added to owners.list.

Thanks for the review!