A few notes :
- could you ask to upstream to clean his tarball, as there is binary 
distributed within ?
- while on it, the high level of warning of gcc do not seems good, so
if you could make upstream aware of them, it would be better
- I would also recommend to add a license header in every file, for various
reasons ( like people doing cut and paste of the whole file )

None of this is blocking so package is approved.


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

Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/868666-paris-
     traceroute/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
     Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
     in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
     Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
     --requires).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: paris-traceroute-debuginfo-0.92-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm
          paris-traceroute-0.92-2.fc17.src.rpm
          paris-traceroute-0.92-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm
paris-traceroute.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reconverge -> re converge, re-converge, recon verge
paris-traceroute.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reconverge -> re converge, re-converge, recon verge
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint paris-traceroute-debuginfo paris-traceroute
paris-traceroute.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reconverge -> re converge, re-converge, recon verge
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
paris-traceroute-debuginfo-0.92-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    

paris-traceroute-0.92-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
paris-traceroute-debuginfo-0.92-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm:
    
    paris-traceroute-debuginfo = 0.92-2.fc17
    paris-traceroute-debuginfo(x86-64) = 0.92-2.fc17

paris-traceroute-0.92-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm:
    
    paris-traceroute = 0.92-2.fc17
    paris-traceroute(x86-64) = 0.92-2.fc17



MD5-sum check
-------------
http://www.paris-traceroute.net/downloads/paris-traceroute-0.92-dev.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 93f05a7f27374bd9b2dd474963679fffeee947642dd1c8478afc7cb72fbb4cbe
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 93f05a7f27374bd9b2dd474963679fffeee947642dd1c8478afc7cb72fbb4cbe


Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0 (Unknown) last change: Unknown
Buildroot used: fedora-17-x86_64
Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 868666

Thanks for the review.

The package is approved, you need to ask for the git repo, no ?

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: paris-traceroute
Short Description: A network diagnosis and measurement tool
Owners: fab
Branches: F17 F18
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

paris-traceroute-0.92-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/paris-traceroute-0.92-2.fc17

paris-traceroute-0.92-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/paris-traceroute-0.92-2.fc18

paris-traceroute-0.92-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.

paris-traceroute-0.92-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.

paris-traceroute-0.92-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: paris-traceroute
New Branches: el6 epel7
Owners: fab
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).