ok. I would be happy to (re)review this. 

Look for a full review in a bit here... 

OK - Package name
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (GPL)
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
No, but ok - Sources match upstream md5sum:
(images removed)
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
See below - No rpmlint output.

SHOULD Items:

OK - Should include License or ask upstream to include it. 
OK - Should build in mock.

Issues:

1. Perhaps 'images-leagal.txt' could be renamed 'supertuxkart-images-legal.txt'
just to make it easier to find if you unpack the src.rpm? (just a minor nit).
Has any move been made to get upstream to change images to make it more
distributable moving forward?

2. Your provides and obsoletes don't look quite right to me.
Perhaps that should be:

Provides: tuxkart = %{version}-%{release}
Obsoletes: tuxkart <= 0.4.0-6

I'm looking at:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-
581c3fb3ff1c6ef7404e8b288b59cd5280d75ad6

3. rpmlint says:
supertuxkart incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.4.0-5 0.2-1.fc6
(the .fc6 doesn't need to be there, just the version... )

(In reply to comment #2)
> OK - Spec is legible.
> No, but ok

Erm, how is it not legible? Any comments / suggestions to improve its
legibleness are very much welcome.


> Issues:
> 
> 1. Perhaps 'images-leagal.txt' could be renamed 'supertuxkart-images-legal.txt'
> just to make it easier to find if you unpack the src.rpm? (just a minor nit).
Done

> Has any move been made to get upstream to change images to make it more
> distributable moving forward?
> 
Yes now that there is an upstream once more I've contacted them about this and
they are looking into this.

> 2. Your provides and obsoletes don't look quite right to me.
> Perhaps that should be:
> 
> Provides: tuxkart = %{version}-%{release}
> Obsoletes: tuxkart <= 0.4.0-6
> 

That won't work because then the Provides would be older then the Obsoletes
making the package self obsoleting

> 3. rpmlint says:
> supertuxkart incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.4.0-5 0.2-1.fc6
> (the .fc6 doesn't need to be there, just the version... )
> 

AH my bad, I didn't update the changelog, fixed.

Here is a new version with all this fixed:
Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/supertuxkart.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/supertuxkart-0.2-2.src.rpm

>Erm, how is it not legible? Any comments / suggestions to improve its
>legibleness are very much welcome.

Sorry, that was refering to the Source files matching upstream. 
They don't, but thats due to removing those images, so it's ok. :) 

>Yes now that there is an upstream once more I've contacted them about this and
>they are looking into this.

Cool. 

>That won't work because then the Provides would be older then the Obsoletes
>making the package self obsoleting

Ah, I see. Pity upstream didn't start versioning at a higher N-V-R. ;( 

ok, all the issues I see are fixed in this new release, so this package is 
APPROVED. 
Don't forget to close this bug NEXTRELEASE once it's been imported and built. 
Also, don't forget to close out the old package with a dead.package file and so 
forth... 

I haven't imported this yet because more copyright images have been found by
others on the supertuxkart-devel mailing list, most of these have been fixed in
svn now.

Also its unplayable on one of my machines because keypresses get lost.

Once both issues are revolved I'll create a new srpm, is it ok to import that
one or do you want to take a (quick) look at it first?

ok. I would be happy to take a quick look at an updated package, or if you 
prefer you can just check it in. Whichever you prefer. 

I've just imported ands build supertuxkart-0.2-3 which:
-fixes the bugs which it was showing on my machine
-replaces the additional copyrighted images and sound upstream has found.