This is not an official review, I'm looking for a sponsor.

* rmplint returns W: aria2 summary-ended-with-dot High speed download utility
with resuming and segmented downloading.
* specfile is properly named
* source files match upstream
* BuildRequires listed well (mock builds successfully on FC6 i386)
* latest version is being packaged
* license field matches the actual license (included in %doc)
* no duplicates in %files
* spec file handles locales properly

"download accellerators" with "segmented downloading of one file with multiple
connections from one URL" are evil.

(In reply to comment #2)
> "download accellerators" with "segmented downloading of one file with multiple
> connections from one URL" are evil.

Nevertheless, they can be used by a lot of people and also metalink feature is
quite nice :)

I am not sponsored, it is prereview.

-Rpmlint:
(S)RPM: "W: aria2 summary-ended-with-dot High speed download utility with
resuming and segmented downloading."

Summary is:
"Summary:        High speed download utility with resuming and segmented
downloading."
It should be:
"Summary:        High speed download utility with resuming and segmented
downloading"

-The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
-The spec file name is in the format %{name}.spec
-I think that the package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
-License GPL - ok
-In spec the actual license is written
-The text of the license is included in %doc
-The spec file is written in American English.
-The spec file for the package is legible.
-md5sum source in srpm and from url is the same
-SRPM succesfully compiles with mock (Fc6, arch i386)
-All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. There are not any packages
from ExceptionList
-The spec file handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang
macro. There are not used %{_datadir}/locale/*
-RPM package have not shared library files
-The package is not designed to be relocatable.
-The package own all directories that it creates. 
-There are not any duplicate files in %files listing.
-Permissions on files are set properly.
-Package have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
-The package consistently uses macros
-The package contains code, or permissable content.
-There are not large documentation files
-Files in %doc do not affect the runtime of the application.
-There are not header files or static libraries.
-There are not pkgconfig(.pc) files.
-There are not any library files with a suffix
-There are not a devel package
-There are not any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec.
-It is not a GUI application
-Packages does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. 

(In reply to comment #4)
> Summary is:
> "Summary:        High speed download utility with resuming and segmented
> downloading."
> It should be:
> "Summary:        High speed download utility with resuming and segmented
> downloading"
>

Fixed.

Spec URL: http://ecik.nonlogic.org/aria/aria2.spec
SRPM URL: http://ecik.nonlogic.org/aria/aria2-0.9.0-2.src.rpm

- MUST: rpmlint is silent
- MUST: Package is named well
- MUST: Spec file name matches the package name
- MUST: Package meets packaging guidelines
- MUST: Pachage is licensed with GPL
- MUST: License field matches actual license
- MUST: COPYING file is included in %doc
- MUST: Spec is written in English, most probably American (I am not that
familiar with the differences to be 100% sure)
- MUST: I can understand the spec file
- MUST: MD5 sums match
- MUST: Package build in mock (fc6/i386)
- MUST: I can't check other architectures
- MUST: All deps are listed in BR
- MUST: %find_lang is used
- MUST: Package does not contain shared libs
- MUST: Package is not relocatable
- MUST: Directory ownership is ok
- MUST: There are no duplicates in %files
- MUST: Permissions are OK
- MUST: Clean section is present
- MUST: Macros are used consistently
- MUST: Package contains code
- MUST: There is no large documentation
- MUST: %doc is not required at runtime
- MUST: There is no headers nor static libs
- MUST: No pkgconfig files
- MUST: There is no shared libs
- MUST: There is no -devel subpackage
- MUST: There is no libtool archives
- MUST: Not a GUI app
- MUST: Pachage does not own dirs owned by other packages

SHOULD Items:
- SHOULD: License is included
- SHOULD: There are not translantions
- SHOULD: Package builds in mock (fc6/i386)
- SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
- SHOULD: Package works (smoke tested on fc6/i386)
- SHOULD: Scriptlets are not used
- SHOULD: There is no devel subpackage
- SHOULD: There are no pkgconfig files

APPROVED

Thanks for review!
Package built successfully for every branch I requested.
Closing.

*** Bug 201808 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: aria2
New Branches: el6 epel7
Owners: athmane

Git done (by process-git-requests).