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.
      %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
 license field matches the actual license.
 license is open source-compatible.  GPL License text included in package.
 source files match upstream:
      d7b8993f4baed7753fb7c912b06725fb  pastebin.tar.gz
      d7b8993f4baed7753fb7c912b06725fb  ../SOURCES/pastebin.tar.gz
 latest version is being packaged.
 BuildRequires are proper.
 package builds in mock ( FC-6 ).
 rpmlint is silent.
 final provides and requires are sane
 no shared libraries are present.
 package is not relocatable.
 doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
 file permissions are appropriate.
 %clean is present.
 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.
 not a GUI app.

Needs fixing 
does not own %{_datadir}/%{name}
%{_sysconfdir}/%{name} listed twice

I have fixed he above issues. 

Spec URL: http://www.stahnkage.com/rpms/pastebin.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.stahnkage.com/rpms/pastebin-0.50-2.src.rpm

ok looks good and the package works.

APPROVED

and ill sponsor you also  as it seems you are not sponsored already 

apply for cvsextras group access

(In reply to comment #1)
>  rpmlint is silent.

rpmlint is not silent:
W: pastebin mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 12)

Also, there are some documentation files in %{_datadir}/pastebin/lib/geshi/docs
which should be moved to %doc. Creation of new directory there, like geshi
sounds like a good solution. It seems to me that the content of 
{_datadir}/pastebin/lib/geshi may be moved there as well, obviously after some
fixing in example.php.

Oops, I didn't want to set an FE-REVIEW blocker back. Changing to FE-ACCEPT
again.

Are you saying the geshi doc should be in /usr/share/doc/geshi or
/usr/share/doc/pastebin-0.50/geshi?

Well, some notes:

Keep timestamps for text files as possible.
( Timestamps in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines )

* Use "cp -p" or "install -p" instead of just "cp" or "install"
* for sed usage:
----------------------------------------------------
find . -type f| xargs sed -i 's/\r//' 
----------------------------------------------------
  Well, this usage of find -> sed change timestamps of all files
  under the directory ".", even some (many) files are actually
  not necessary to be fixed.

  Just use "sed" to the files which are _actually_ needed to
  be changed.

(In reply to comment #6)
> Are you saying the geshi doc should be in /usr/share/doc/geshi or
> /usr/share/doc/pastebin-0.50/geshi?
> 

I meant the second one.

with the find and sed removed i get 
[dennis@daedalus SPECS]$ 
rpmlint /home/dennis/fedora/RPMS/noarch/pastebin-0.50-2.noarch.rpm |grep 
wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding |wc -l
84
[dennis@daedalus SPECS]$ 
rpm -qlp /home/dennis/fedora/RPMS/noarch/pastebin-0.50-2.noarch.rpm |wc -l
106
[dennis@daedalus SPECS]$

so nearly every single file is dos line ended  in this instance i think it is 
fine to mass change line endings.  if it was a small handfull of files i would 
do them individually. but that is not the case.

as far as the docs  yeah I missed that  they should go into %doc

as far as rpmlint goes 
[dennis@daedalus SPECS]$ 
rpmlint /home/dennis/fedora/RPMS/noarch/pastebin-0.50-2.noarch.rpm
[dennis@daedalus SPECS]$ 
rpmlint /home/dennis/fedora/RPMS/noarch/pastebin-0.50-1.noarch.rpm
[dennis@daedalus SPECS]$ 

it is indeed silent for me if there is mixed spaces/tabs  then thats should be 
fixed 

(In reply to comment #10)
> it is indeed silent for me if there is mixed spaces/tabs  then thats should 
be 
> fixed 

Apart from built rpm file, you ought to also check rpmlint against source rpm
file.
[ecik@ecik ~]$ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/pastebin-0.50-2.src.rpm
W: pastebin mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 12)

(In reply to comment #9)
> with the find and sed removed i get 
> [dennis@daedalus SPECS]$ 
> rpmlint /home/dennis/fedora/RPMS/noarch/pastebin-0.50-2.noarch.rpm |grep 
> wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding |wc -l
> 84
> [dennis@daedalus SPECS]$ 
> rpm -qlp /home/dennis/fedora/RPMS/noarch/pastebin-0.50-2.noarch.rpm |wc -l
> 106
> [dennis@daedalus SPECS]$
> 
> so nearly every single file is dos line ended  in this instance i think it is 
> fine to mass change line endings.  if it was a small handfull of files i would 
> do them individually. but that is not the case.

Well, even this case, still checking if the file 
"sed" command is to be applied is really a text file.
As far as I checked, there is one file which is not a text file
(./public_html/favicon.ico),
against this file "sed" command should not be used.

(In reply to comment #12)
> Well, even this case, still checking if the file 
> "sed" command is to be applied is really a text file.
> As far as I checked, there is one file which is not a text file
> (./public_html/favicon.ico),
> against this file "sed" command should not be used.

It may be easily fixed by sedding only the files in lib/ subdirectory.

I forgot to add that the files in public_html/ directory should be listed
explicitly.

Can you tell me why (source) I should list public_html files explicitly?  I
didn't see anything on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines about it. 

I am not saying I won't do it, I just want to know why. 

(In reply to comment #15)
> Can you tell me why (source) I should list public_html files explicitly?
> 

I meant that you ought to sed all files in lib/ and explicit list files to sed
in public_html.

Would this be an acceptable way to sed only text files? 


for file in `find . -type f`
do
   if (file $file | awk -F: '{print $2}' | grep -i text &> /dev/null) ; then
      sed -i 's/\r//g' $file
   fi
done

Spec URL: http://www.stahnkage.com/rpms/pastebin.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.stahnkage.com/rpms/pastebin-0.50-3.src.rpm

(In reply to comment #17)
> Would this be an acceptable way to sed only text files? 

This script should work well.
I can accept 0.50-3 for sed issue (not checked if other issues
exist, however I assume it is okay for now).