Offhand, 

1. it appears
%{_includedir}/GraphicsMagick
dir is unowned.

2.  in c++-devel subpkg:
Requires: %{name}-c++ = %{version}
Requires: %{name}-devel = %{version}
should be:
Requires: %{name}-c++ = %{version}-%{release}
Requires: %{name}-devel = %{version}-%{release}

thx, changes are incorporated at the original location

FYI, whenever you make a change to the package, you ought to increment the 
Release tag and add a changelog entry accordingly.

Ahhhhrgl. I thought we went over that topic often enough? Wasn't the consensus
that bumping release numbers and changelogs during review is purely optional? It
really doesn't serve as far as I can see, as the bugzilla entry contains more
information then the changelog ever will.

I don't know who you're referring to as "we", but IMO, the same rules that 
apply toward Fedora (Core/Extras) releases should be applied during reviews too.

just IMHO, bumping release and adding changelogs is very usefull during reviews 
to me. It allows me to see that something was addressed and when. 

Some submitters have used -0.X during reviews and then bump release to -1 on 
import. I think thats fine if you are more comfortable with that... 

Any chance you could push our a new release with new release/changelog entries?

Andreas,
Is there any updates to package here?
Otherwise i can go for Official Review.

Oki had a look at packaging of this software and found that GraphicsMagick-devel
reporting files listed as twice. keep only
%{_includedir}/GraphicsMagick and remove other 2 lines starting with %{_includedir}.
Reupdate package by changing release tag.

Ping

Package has been updated at the usual location.
Please take a look.

Review:
+ package builds in mock (development i386).
+ rpmlint is silent for SRPM and RPMS.
+ source files match upstream.
f75d830ca623bf10385b3ad62c48437a  GraphicsMagick-1.1.7.tar.bz2
+ package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
+ specfile is properly named, is cleanly written
+ Spec file is written in American English.
+ Spec file is legible.
+ dist tag is present.
+ build root is correct.
+ license is open source-compatible.  License text included in package.
+ %doc is small; no -doc subpackage required.
+ %doc does not affect runtime.
+ COPYING included in %doc.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ %clean is present.
+ package installed properly.
+ Macro use appears rather consistent.
+ Package contains code, not content.
+ no headers or static libraries.
+ .pc file present.
+ -devel,-c++, -c++-devel, -perl subpackages exists
+ as subpackages are packaging .so files post and postun called /sbin/ldconfig
+ no .la files.
+ no translations are available
+ Dose owns the directories it creates.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ perl subpackage followed perl packagaing.
APPROVED.

thx for the review, package is in cvs.

owners.list entry is missing!