packaging looks ok.
+ Mockbuild is successfull for i386 FC6
+ rpmlint on binary rpm is silent
+ dist tag is present
+ Buildroot is correct
+ source URL is correct
+ BR is correct
+ License used is GPL
+ License file COPYING is included
+ Desktop file is handled correctly
+ MD5 sum on tarball is matching upstream tarball
7fa71b86969d8d695c3b062780a5694e  gstm-1.2.tar.gz
+ No duplicate files

Why has this been closed and checked in?  I don't see any approval, and it's
still blocking FE-NEW.

Confused... But make the a complet review please! Someone could review this package?

In the interests of getting everything straightened out, I'll go ahead and
review this package.

The only rpmlint complaint:

W: gstm mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs
  There is a mix of indentation types used in the spec, but I don't know if
there's a particular use that it's complaining about.

What's the point of the BuildRequires: openssh?  That just gives you ssh-keygen
and some documentation; did you mean to BR: openssh-clients instead?  Or,
perhaps, did you mean to Requires: openssh-clients?  Currently there's no SSH
dependency in the final package.

* source files match upstream:
   7fa71b86969d8d695c3b062780a5694e  gstm-1.2.tar.gz
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
O 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.
* latest version is being packaged.
? BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* debuginfo package looks complete.
X rpmlint is silent.
? final provides and requires are sane:
   gstm = 1.2-1.fc6
  =
   libICE.so.6()(64bit)
   libORBit-2.so.0()(64bit)
   libSM.so.6()(64bit)
   libX11.so.6()(64bit)
   libart_lgpl_2.so.2()(64bit)
   libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libbonobo-2.so.0()(64bit)
   libbonobo-activation.so.4()(64bit)
   libbonoboui-2.so.0()(64bit)
   libcairo.so.2()(64bit)
   libgconf-2.so.4()(64bit)
   libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libgnome-2.so.0()(64bit)
   libgnome-keyring.so.0()(64bit)
   libgnomecanvas-2.so.0()(64bit)
   libgnomeui-2.so.0()(64bit)
   libgnomevfs-2.so.0()(64bit)
   libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libgthread-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libpangoft2-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libpopt.so.0()(64bit)
   libxml2.so.2()(64bit)
   libz.so.1()(64bit)
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* 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.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* 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.
* GUI app; desktop file looks OK and is installed properly.

Well I removed openssh in br :)
New Spec : http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/gstm/gstm.spec
Nex SRPM : http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/gstm/gstm-1.2-2.src.rpm

For some reason several things have stopped building for me in rawhide,
including this package.  It still builds fine in FC5, though.

OK, so you removed the BR: openssh-client, but you seem to have neglected the
other comments I made.  The mixed-spaces-and-tabs thing isn't really a blocker
but it's still there and it would be good if you fixed it.  More troubling is
that there's still no dependency on openssh-clients.  At minimum you need to
require /usr/bin/ssh because gstm will call that directly.  (Actually it calls
"ssh" and relies on PATH to find it.)

** gstm-1.2-2.src.rpm builds and runs fine on my x86_64 machine under FC-5.

** rpmlint produces:
W: gstm mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs

** However, I think that %{_bindir}/gaskpass should go into a separate 
package.

(In reply to comment #5)
> * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.

Actually, it does: in %files, "%{_datadir}/pixmaps" should 
be "%{_datadir}/pixmaps/*". This is a MUST.

(Sorry for the spam.) Another comment: the %description should preserve the 
case chosen upstream: "gSTM" instead of "Gstm".

(In reply to comment #9)
> Actually, it does: in %files, "%{_datadir}/pixmaps" should 
> be "%{_datadir}/pixmaps/*". This is a MUST.

Indeed.  In FC5 is it very common for gnome packages to own this directory; 40
packages provide it.  When I looked at the list of packages I seem to have
missed the fact that "filesystem" is one of those packages, and so you must not
own it.

Added openssh-clients and repackaged.

SRPM : http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/gstm/gstm-1.2-3.src.rpm
SPEC : http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/gstm/gstm.spec

I think there must be some sort of communication problem here.  The way this
works is that reviewers make comments and point out things that need to be
changed.  You should either make the indicated changes or discuss why you think
those changes shouldn't be made.  Instead, you seem to be ignoring most of the
comments.

The following issues have not been addressed:
  Still owns %{_datadir}/pixmaps.
  %description still says Gstm instead of gSTM.

In addition, could you also comment on Laurent's comment that gaskpass should be
in a separate package?  (I admit to not understanding the issue here; perhaps
Laurent could elaborate.)

(In reply to comment #13)
> In addition, could you also comment on Laurent's comment that gaskpass 
should be
> in a separate package?  (I admit to not understanding the issue here; 
perhaps
> Laurent could elaborate.)

This is not an "issue". gAskpass could be totally independent from gSTM. I 
think that it has an interest outside of gSTM: one could like to install 
gAskpass without gSTM.

Created attachment 134623 [details]
Patch that create a gaskpass package

Thanks for your patch Laurent, it's added to the spec file.

Spec : http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/gstm/gstm.spec
SPRM : http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/gstm/gstm-1.2-4.fc6.src.rpm

Still owns %datadir/pixmaps.
%description still says Gstm instead of gSTM.

Damien, could you remove gstm from owners.list, until this package is fully 
accepted (maybe soon)? gstm has been reported bogus in the last "FE package 
status" mail.

Sorry, I've been busy a while. You'll find a new spec and srpm where
%description and %datadir/pixmaps have been fixed.

spec: http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/gstm/gstm.spec
srpm: http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/gstm/gstm-1.2-5.fc6.src.rpm

Indeed, those two issues have been fixed.  Three rpmlint issues have cropped up,
but they're not blockers:

W: gstm macro-in-%changelog description
  You need to double every percent symbol in your changelog.

W: gstm mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs
  I believe this warning is completely bogus in this situation.

W: gaskpass no-documentation
  Indeed, there isn't any, but this isn't really an issue as far as I can see.

The issues that were raised have been addressed.

APPROVED

Changed summary for tracking purposes.