I can't download http://downloads.sourceforge.net/UNetbootin/unetbootin-source-356.tar.gz

when the UNetbootin runs I can see a warning about "7z not found", Can you fix this ?


about unetbootin.desktop what you think about puting this file outside spec file ?

Package Review
==============

Package: 

Key:
 - = N/A
 x = Check
 ! = Problem
 ? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
 [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec
 [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one
supported architecture
     Tested on: F11/i386
 [x] Rpmlint output:
     Source RPM:
     [fab@laptop09 SRPMS]$ rpmlint unetbootin-0-1.356bzr.fc11.src.rpm 
     1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
     Binary RPM(s):
     [fab@laptop09 i586]$ rpmlint unetbootin*
     2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
 [x] Package is not relocatable
 [x] Buildroot is correct
     master   : %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)
     spec file: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)
 [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license
     License type: GPLv2+
 [-] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc

 [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English
 [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL
     Upstream source: 4a8e72ab32afbb8564519a211c798f71
     Build source:    4a8e72ab32afbb8564519a211c798f71
 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
 [-] Architecture independent packages have: BuildArch: noarch
 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [-] The spec file handles locales properly.  %find_lang used for locales
 [x] %{optflags} or RPM_OPT_FLAGS are honoured
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required
 [x] %install starts with rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
 [x] Package must own all directories that it creates
 [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages
 [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files
 [x] Permissions on files are set properly. %defattr(-,root,root,-) is in every %files section
 [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime
 [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
 [-] Included tests passed successfully 
 [x] Package consistently uses macros
 [x] Package contains code, or permissable content
 [x] Included filenames are in UTF-8

 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required
 [-] Header files (.h) in -devel subpackage, if present
 [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackage, if present
 [-] Static libraries (.a) in -static subpackage, if present
 [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present
 [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present
 [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
 [x] -debuginfo subpackage is present and looks complete
 [x] No pre-built binaries (.a, .so*, executable)
 
 [x] Package contains a properly installed .desktop file if it is a GUI application [1]
 [x] Follows desktop entry spec
 [x] Valid .desktop Name
 [x] Valid .desktop GenericName
 [x] Valid .desktop Categories
 [-] Valid .desktop StartupNotify
 [x] .desktop file installed with desktop-file-install in %install

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [-] Timestamps preserved with cp and install
 [x] Uses parallel make (%{?_smp_mflags})
 [x] Latest version is packaged
 [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream
 [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available
 [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock
     Tested on: F11/i386
 [x] Package should compile and build into binary RPMs on all supported
architectures.
     Tested:  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1465326
 [?] Package functions as described [2]
 [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used
 [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct
 [-] File based requires are sane
 [x] Changelog in allowed format

[1] Is there a reason why you aren't using the .desktop file from the source tarball?

[2] If you want to start the application from the menu, there is a warning that it must be run with root permissions.  I think that for end users this will be a bit annoying. 
After the start from the command line as root, a box shows up and tell me that 7zip was not found.
The complete message:
'7z not found. This is required for either install mode.
Install the "p7zip-full" package or your distribution's equivalent.'

But it's available.
[root@laptop09 i586]# rpm -qa p7zip
p7zip-4.65-1.fc11.i586

Sorry guys, I guess that I picked the review from somebody. Did I?

(In reply to comment #1)
> I can't download
> http://downloads.sourceforge.net/UNetbootin/unetbootin-source-356.tar.gz  

Source0 should be 'http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-source-%{rel}.tar.gz' or similar.

(In reply to comment #4)
> Sorry guys, I guess that I picked the review from somebody. Did I?  

may be, from panemade ?

(In reply to comment #4)
> Sorry guys, I guess that I picked the review from somebody. Did I?  

No, no-one had set the review flag, the assigned-to field or the bug status to assigned before you. 

(In reply to comment #5)
> Source0 should be
> 'http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-source-%{rel}.tar.gz' or
> similar.  

thx, fixed.

(In reply to comment #2)
> when the UNetbootin runs I can see a warning about "7z not found", Can you fix
> this ?

fixed.

(In reply to comment #3)
> [1] Is there a reason why you aren't using the .desktop file from the source
> tarball?

Done.

http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/unetbootin.spec
http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/unetbootin-0-2.356bzr.fc11.src.rpm

Package APPROVED

Thanks for the review!

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: unetbootin
Short Description: Create bootable Live USB drives for a variety of Linux distributions
Owners: jussilehtola
Branches: F-10 F-11 EL-5
InitialCC:

CVS done.

unetbootin-0-5.356bzr.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/unetbootin-0-5.356bzr.el5

unetbootin-0-5.356bzr.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/unetbootin-0-5.356bzr.fc10

unetbootin-0-5.356bzr.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/unetbootin-0-5.356bzr.fc11

unetbootin-0-5.356bzr.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update unetbootin'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/EL-5/FEDORA-EPEL-2009-0058

unetbootin-0-5.356bzr.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update unetbootin'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-7551

unetbootin-0-5.356bzr.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update unetbootin'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-7592

unetbootin-0-6.356bzr.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/unetbootin-0-6.356bzr.fc10

unetbootin-0-6.356bzr.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/unetbootin-0-6.356bzr.fc11

unetbootin-0-6.356bzr.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/unetbootin-0-6.356bzr.el5

unetbootin-0-6.356bzr.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update unetbootin'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/EL-5/FEDORA-EPEL-2009-0088

unetbootin-0-6.356bzr.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update unetbootin'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-7826

unetbootin-0-6.356bzr.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update unetbootin'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-7913

unetbootin-0-6.356bzr.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

unetbootin-0-6.356bzr.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

unetbootin-0-6.356bzr.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.