==== REVIEW CHECKLIST ====
- rpmlint output
W: sear-media hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/sear/sear-media-0.6/castle/.dot_it.sh.swp

Looks like this file can safely be removed.
- package named according to package naming guidelines
- spec file name matches %{name}
- package meets packaging guidelines
- licensed with open source compatible license
X license tag matches actual license
- license file included in %doc
- spec written in American english
- spec file legible
- sources match upstream
c136577e5ca64dd39a91d47c0c4c2ba6  sear-media-20070206.tar.gz
- package successfully compiles and builds on FC-6 x86_64
- all build dependencies listed in BR
- no locales
- no shared libraries
- package is not relocatable
X package does not own all directories it creates
- no duplicates in %files
- file permissions set properly
- package contains proper %clean
- macro usage consistent
- package contains permissible content
- no large documentation
- files in %doc do not affect runtime
- no header files or static libraries
- no pkgconfig files
- no library files with suffix
- no need for devel subpackage
- no libtool archives
- not a GUI application
- does not own files or directories owned by other packages


==== MUST FIX ====
- Remove .swp file found by rpmlint
- LICENSING.txt is confusing.  First it says the artwork is GPL, but then goes
on to say that the actual license is modifable under the GFDL, and then they
list sections of documentation which are clearly broilerplate sections in an
unmodified license file, for example "Sections being LIST THEIR TITLES", and
"modify this document" when the document itself is a license file.  I guess this
needs to be clarified with upstream? It seems they do not really care.  I guess
I also have to ask why you license this as just GPL instead of GPL/GFDL.
- the package creates a directory "sear" under /usr/share which it does not own,
nor does it pull in any packages which own this directory in Requries.
- README and COPYING.txt probably dont need to be included twice in the file
list, LICENSING.txt explicitly mentions "files under this directory" so I guess
this has to be in both locations, however the license *is* modifyable under the
GFDL... ;-)

Updated package:

http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/sear.spec
http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/sear-media-0.6-2.src.rpm

- editor swap file removed
- I've asked upstream to clarify/cleanup the licensing text, and updated the
spec file to use "License: GPL/GFDL"
- Removed duplicate license texts from %doc and %{_datadir}

I'm not sure of the best way to handle the unowned /usr/share/sear directory. 
This is provided by the 'sear' package, which will 'Requires: sear-media' once
approved.  But this would still allow someone to install sear-media without
sear, and have an unowned directory.  I see two ways to handle this:

1) Have both sear and sear-media own %{_datadir}/sear
2) Have both packages require each other:
   sear 'Requires: sear-media'
   sear-media 'Requires: sear'
...but I thought that circular dependencies were frowned upon.

Why won't this work?:

sear-media.spec:
...
%files
%dir %{_datadir}/sear
{%_datadir}/sear/%{name}-%{version}

Then in sear.spec:
Requires: %{name}-media
...
%files
%{_datadir}/%{name}/*

Well aren't you just the clever one.  :)
That should work just fine.  According to a small sampling on f-d-l, a circular
dependency in this case would be ok too.

http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/sear-media.spec
http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/sear-media-0.6-3.src.rpm

All must items fixed.  Approved pending changes to sear.spec mentioned above.

I've made the changes to sear.spec in CVS and will rebuild once sear-media has
been checked in and built.  Thanks for the review!

Package Name: sear-media
Short Description: Media files for the sear WorldForge client
Owners: wart
Branches: FC-6
InitialCC: che666

Imported and built for rawhide.  Thanks!