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

SRPM:
http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal6-service_links/drupal6-service_links-6.x.2.0-2.fc14.src.rpm
SPEC:
http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal6-service_links/drupal6-service_links.spec

Fixed.

Good:
+ Basename of the SPEC file matches to package name
+ Package fullfill naming guidelines
+ Package contains most recent stable release of the application
+ Pakckage contains a valid license tag
+ License tag states GPLv2+ as a valid OSS license
+ Package contains a verbatin copy of the license text
+ Package contains no subpackages
+ Could download upstream tarball via spectool -g
+ Package tar ball matches with upstream
(md5sum: 603aec311fdf709dc9dbeef917284116)
+ consistantly usage of rpm macros
+ Local build works fine
+ Scatch build works fine on koji
+ All package files are own by the package
+ All files has proper file permission
+ %doc stanza is small, so no separate doc sub package is required
+ package has proper chagelog entries


Bad:
- Package should contains Provides: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
- Rpmlint has the following complaints on the binary package:
rpmlint drupal6-service_links-6.x.2.0-2.fc14.noarch.rpm 
drupal6-service_links.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US icio -> icily, icing, icicle
drupal6-service_links.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gnolia -> magnolia, goliard, Goliath
drupal6-service_links.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided drupal-service_links
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.


Please Check:
? Rpmlint has complaints on source package:
rpmlint drupal6-service_links-6.x.2.0-2.fc14.src.rpm 
drupal6-service_links.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US icio -> icily, icing, icicle
drupal6-service_links.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gnolia -> magnolia, goliard, Goliath
drupal6-service_links.src: W: strange-permission service_links-6.x-2.0.tar.gz 0444L
drupal6-service_links.src:29: W: macro-in-comment %patch0
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

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

Please change the version number to 2.0 instead of 6.x.2.0.

Corrected version, license, patch macro, and source permissions.  Spelling issues are due to third-party service spellings.

SRPM:
http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal6-service_links/drupal6-service_links-2.0-1.fc14.src.rpm
SPEC:
http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal6-service_links/drupal6-service_links.spec

As with -views - the obsoletes is the wrong way around:

Obsoletes: drupal-service_links >= 6.x.2.0-1 instead of <=

SRPM:
http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal6-service_links/drupal6-service_links-2.0-2.fc14.src.rpm
SPEC:
http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal6-service_links/drupal6-service_links.spec

Corrected obsoletes direction.

Unfortunately I have some complaints:

1.) I want to the a provides tag.

2.) You thould increas the Epoche because the versioning schema was changed.

See comment on workspace BZ.

Jon,

$ rpmlint drupal6-service_links.spec ../SRPMS/drupal6-service_links-2.0-2.fc16.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/drupal6-service_links-2.0-2.fc16.noarch.rpm 
drupal6-service_links.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US del -> led, Del, deli
drupal6-service_links.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US icio -> ionic
drupal6-service_links.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gnolia -> magnolia
drupal6-service_links.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US del -> led, Del, deli
drupal6-service_links.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US icio -> ionic
drupal6-service_links.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gnolia -> magnolia
drupal6-service_links.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided drupal-service_links
drupal6-service_links.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/drupal6-service_links-2.0/LICENSE.txt
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings.

please fix that error.

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

Yeah, you should.
You know, "Source2: LICENSE.txt" then copy it...

SRPM:
http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal6-service_links/drupal6-service_links-2.0-3.fc16.src.rpm
SPEC:
http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal6-service_links/drupal6-service_links.spec

$ rpmlint drupal6-service_links.spec ../SRPMS/drupal6-service_links-2.0-3.fc16.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/drupal6-service_links-2.0-3.fc16.noarch.rpm 
drupal6-service_links.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US del -> led, Del, deli
drupal6-service_links.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US icio -> ionic
drupal6-service_links.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gnolia -> magnolia
drupal6-service_links.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US del -> led, Del, deli
drupal6-service_links.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US icio -> ionic
drupal6-service_links.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gnolia -> magnolia
drupal6-service_links.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided drupal-service_links
drupal6-service_links.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/drupal6-service_links-2.0/LICENSE.txt
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.

Could you fix the last warning?

Whoops.  Fixed.

SRPM:
http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal6-service_links/drupal6-service_links-2.0-4.fc16.src.rpm
SPEC:
http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal6-service_links/drupal6-service_links.spec

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

$ rpmlint drupal6-service_links.spec ../SRPMS/drupal6-service_links-2.0-4.fc16.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/drupal6-service_links-2.0-4.fc16.noarch.rpm 
drupal6-service_links.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US del -> led, Del, deli
drupal6-service_links.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US icio -> ionic
drupal6-service_links.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gnolia -> magnolia
drupal6-service_links.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US del -> led, Del, deli
drupal6-service_links.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US icio -> ionic
drupal6-service_links.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gnolia -> magnolia
drupal6-service_links.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided drupal-service_links
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.

These warnings may all 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 service_links-6.x-2.0.tar.gz ; curl -s -o - http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/service_links-6.x-2.0.tar.gz | md5sum -603aec311fdf709dc9dbeef917284116  service_links-6.x-2.0.tar.gz
603aec311fdf709dc9dbeef917284116  -

[ 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-service_links
Short Description: Enables admins to add links to a number of sites
Owners: limb
Branches: 
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Imported, built, drupal-service_links retired, to be blocked.  Thanks!