You should probably rename drupal-workspace-fedora-README.txt to drupal6-workspace-fedora-README.txt and maybe use %{name} there.

(In reply to comment #1)
> You should probably rename drupal-workspace-fedora-README.txt to
> drupal6-workspace-fedora-README.txt and maybe use %{name} there.

In the file:

be sure to run the http://hostname/drupal/upgrade.php script after this

Does that need to be drupal6?  How is the apache config going to look?

(In reply to comment #2)

>> You should probably rename drupal-workspace-fedora-README.txt to
>> drupal6-workspace-fedora-README.txt and maybe use %{name} there.
 
> In the file:
> be sure to run the http://hostname/drupal/upgrade.php script after this
> Does that need to be drupal6?  How is the apache config going to look?

Yes. That needs to be /drupal6/upgrade.php.

drupal6 will have a drupal6.conf aliasing /drupal6 to /usr/share/drupal6/

SRPM:
http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal6-workspace/drupal6-workspace-6.x.1.4-3.rc1.fc14.src.rpm
SPEC:
http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal6-workspace/drupal6-workspace.spec

Fixed.

Good:
+ Basename of the SPEC file matches with package name.
+ Package contains most recent version of the application
+ Download of the upstream tar ball via spectool -g works fine
+ Packaged tar ball matches with upstream
(md5sum: 31c3096654914eb2c58971de355d21a8)
+ Package contains valid BuildRoot definition
+ Package will build for noarch
* Package contains a License tag
* License tag specified GPL as a OSS license
+ Package contains verbatin copy of the license text
+ Local build works fine
+ Rpmlint is silent on source rpm
+ Scratch build works fine on koji
+ All files in the file stanza are own by this package
+ Files in the package has prpoer file permissions
+ There a no files with the same name in ohter package
+ %doc stanza is small, no we don't need a separate doc subpackage


Bad:
- Package should contains Provides: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
- Rpmlint comlaints on binary rpm:
$ rpmlint drupal6-workspace-6.x.1.4-3.rc1.fc14.noarch.rpm 
drupal6-workspace.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided drupal-workspace
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
- Because this package contains a prerelease, the releasenumber should start with 0.

Please correct the license to GPLv2+, as all modules hosted in Drupal's CVS must be.

Please change the version number to 1.4 instead of 6.x.1.4.

Fixed license, version, release.  Provides are not needed in this case.

SRPM:
http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal6-workspace/drupal6-workspace-1.4-0.rc1.fc14.src.rpm
SPEC:
http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal6-workspace/drupal6-workspace.spec

(In reply to comment #7)
> Provides are not needed in this case.

Can you explain me, why you think, that we don't needs a Provides?

As second, I see, that you have change the versioning schema. So I think we have to increase the Epoch to make sure, that we have a proper working updating path

Because the new package will replace the old package, and nothing will Require the old package name.  I could be wrong, but that's my understanding of how a rename should work.

I didn't think I needed to do an Epoch bump if the name was changing?  It won't update drupal-workspace, it will replace it with drupal6-workspace.

I disagree with you. My expericense shows, that you don't rely to the basename of the package. Ths may occurs some odd results.

So it may be better to increase the Epoche of the package.

What sort of odd results?  I don't want to bump the Epoch unless absolutely necessary.

I have toruble to reference to qt-devel because I have forgooten the Epoch and have got a try to get qt4-devel which was failed because the version and release of this package doesn't fit the specificiation in the BR.

Due the Provide/Obsolet statement the package management will handelt both names - the new and the old one, es they may be equal.

This and service_links are all that block the drupal->drupal6 rename.  Is all you're objecting to the Epoch?

Jon,

I tried to rebuild this package on my F16 box and got a few issues, please fix these.


$ rpmlint drupal6-workspace.spec ../SRPMS/drupal6-workspace-1.4-0.rc1.fc16.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/drupal6-workspace-1.4-0.rc1.fc16.noarch.rpm 
drupal6-workspace.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided drupal-workspace
drupal6-workspace.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/drupal6-workspace-1.4/LICENSE.txt
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.

Plus, I'd define a "prerelease" macro so you can get better URLs like below.

"Source0:   http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/imagecache-6.x-%{version}-%{prerelease}.tar.gz"

We've not been doing the provides for the renames.

For incorrect fsf address, should I just replace the license file?

Either do that or replace it with sed. It's not a "must" though.

(In reply to comment #15)
> We've not been doing the provides for the renames.
> 
> For incorrect fsf address, should I just replace the license file?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646608#c12

SRPM:
http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal6-workspace/drupal6-workspace-1.4-1.rc1.fc16.src.rpm
SPEC:
http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal6-workspace/drupal6-workspace.spec

Fixed.

$ rpmlint drupal6-workspace.spec ../SRPMS/drupal6-workspace-1.4-1.rc1.fc16.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/drupal6-workspace-1.4-1.rc1.fc16.noarch.rpm 
drupal6-workspace.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided drupal-workspace
drupal6-workspace.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/drupal6-workspace-1.4/LICENSE.txt
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

what about this second warning?

Whoops, fixed.

SRPM:
http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal6-workspace/drupal6-workspace-1.4-2.rc1.fc16.src.rpm
SPEC:
http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal6-workspace/drupal6-workspace.spec

[ O K ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
in the review.

$ rpmlint drupal6-workspace.spec ../SRPMS/drupal6-workspace-1.4-2.rc1.fc16.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/drupal6-workspace-1.4-2.rc1.fc16.noarch.rpm 
drupal6-workspace.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided drupal-workspace
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.


This warning may be safely ignored.

[ O K ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines.

[ O K ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.

[ O K ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.

[ O K ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines.

[ O K ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. 

[ O K ] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.

[ O K ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. 

[ O K ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. 

[ O K ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.

$ md5sum workspace-6.x-1.4-rc1.tar.gz ; curl -s -o - http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/workspace-6.x-1.4-rc1.tar.gz | md5sum -
31c3096654914eb2c58971de355d21a8  workspace-6.x-1.4-rc1.tar.gz
31c3096654914eb2c58971de355d21a8  -

[ O K ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one primary architecture. 

[ N/A ] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. 

[ O K ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except
for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.

[ O K ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.

[ N/A ] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. 

[ O K ] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.

[ N/A ] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker. 

[ O K ] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does
not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which
does create that directory. 

[ O K ] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)

[ O K ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include
a %defattr(...) line. 

[ O K ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. 

[ O K ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. 

[ N/A ] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). 

[ O K ] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run properly if it is not present. 

[ N/A ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. 

[ N/A ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. 

[ O K ] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package. 

[ N/A ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the
base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} 

[ O K ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.

[ O K ] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a
%{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with
desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged
GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the
spec file with your explanation. 

[ O K ] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another
package owns, then please present that at package review time. 

[ O K ] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.


** APPROVED.

Excellent, thank you!!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: drupal6-workspace
Short Description: Allows users to have a central place to view and manage their content
Owners: limb 
Branches: 
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Imported, build, drupal-workspace retired, to be blocked.  Thanks!