Initial comments:

1.  add ldconfig scriptlets for shared library:
%{_kde4_libdir}/libhomerun.so.0*

2.  change
%{_kde4_datadir}/icons/*
to
%{_kde4_iconsdir}/oxygen/*/*/*

3.  instead of
%{_kde4_datadir}/locale
use (in %install)
%find_lang %{name} --with-kde --all-names
and (in %files)
%files -f %{name}.lang

4. -devel instead of
%{_includedir}/homerun/*
%{_kde4_libdir}/cmake/Homerun/*
use
%{_includedir}/homerun
%{_kde4_libdir}/cmake/Homerun/
(so the parent dirs are owned too)

New files with fixes:

Spec URL: http://jmarrero.fedorapeople.org/packages/homerun/homerun.spec
SRPM URL: http://jmarrero.fedorapeople.org/packages/homerun/homerun-0.2.2-2.fc18.src.rpm

Koji:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5305283


old files at: http://jmarrero.fedorapeople.org/packages/homerun/old/

BuildRequires:  gettext-devel

For getting the translated *.mo files, an application usually doesn't need gettext-devel. Just gettext should be sufficient here.


%{_kde4_appsdir}/plasma/

This folder is already owned by kdelibs and kde-workspace. Are there reasons to let co-own this folder by your package? If not, add a * at the end of the line to get ownership only for the folder contents.


%{_kde4_libdir}/libhomerun.so.0
%{_kde4_libdir}/libhomerun.so.0.0.0

Would it make sense to provide a -libs package which contain these files?

Spec URL: http://jmarrero.fedorapeople.org/packages/homerun/homerun.spec
SRPM URL: http://jmarrero.fedorapeople.org/packages/homerun/homerun-0.2.2-3.fc18.src.rpm

Koji:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5318267
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5318260


I think creating a separate -libs package is no use for the launcher package because this appication will only use the libs it self, if another application in the future needs it or homerun becomes part of the standard KDE suite maybe a saparate -libs would make sense.

As long as you don't mind the main pkg getting multilib'd because of a lack of -libs subpkg, then it's ok. :)

I will upload my package in a week or so, I am in my finals got no time right now.
But I am still interested in completing this. Sorry for the delay.

Here is the the latest version with the -libs sub package and updated to the latest 1.0.0 release.

http://ece.uprm.edu/jmarrero/fedora_packaging/homerun/homerun.spec
http://ece.uprm.edu/jmarrero/fedora_packaging/homerun/homerun-1.0.0-1.fc19.src.rpm

From the COPYING file:

Individual files should have appropriate license headers.

libhomerun is licensed under LGPL v2.1 or v3 or later versions approved by the
membership of KDE e.V.

homerunviewer and the homerun plasma applet are licensed uder GPL v2 or later.

cmake checks and libhomerun examples are licensed under BSD 2-clause.

The rest of the code is licensed under either:
- LGPL v2.1 or later
- LGPL v2.1 or v3 or later versions approved by the membership of KDE e.V
- GPL v2 or later
- GPL v2.1 or v3 or later versions approved by the membership of KDE e.V


All the used licenses have to be reflected in your license tag:

GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ and BSD



The descriptions need to be tweaked a bit:

Homerun *is* an alternative modern launcher for KDE

The homerun-devel *package* contains all the development files of the homerun launcher

All the descriptions should end with a period (.).


The used macros can be still shrinked:

%{_kde4_datadir}/kde4/apps/ → %{_kde4_appsdir}

Here you will find the macros we have for KDE packages:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/KDE/Packaging/BestPractices?rd=SIGs/KDE/Packaging/Guidelines#Macros

Ping...?

fwiw, I disagree with the recommendation in comment #8 wrt licensing, this should be sufficient to include in the .spec:

main pkg:
# KDE e.V. may determine that future GPL versions are accepted
License: GPLv2 or GPLv3

-libs subpkg:
# KDE e.V. may determine that future LGPL versions are accepted
License: LGPLv2 or LGPLv3

in particular, cmake check code and devdoc examples (that are all BSD) licensed) is irrelevant:
* it's not included in the final binary rpm
* BSD combined with LGPL/GPL becomes LGPL/GPL effectively anyway

Sorry for the delay...

Here are the new files with the changes: 

http://ece.uprm.edu/jmarrero/fedora_packaging/homerun/homerun.spec
http://ece.uprm.edu/jmarrero/fedora_packaging/homerun/homerun-1.0.0-2.fc19.src.rpm

old packages: 
http://ece.uprm.edu/jmarrero/fedora_packaging/homerun/old/

Please recognize the latest comment from Rex Dieter regarding the licenses:
(In reply to Rex Dieter from comment #10)
> main pkg:
> # KDE e.V. may determine that future GPL versions are accepted
> License: GPLv2 or GPLv3
> 
> -libs subpkg:
> # KDE e.V. may determine that future LGPL versions are accepted
> License: LGPLv2 or LGPLv3
> 
> in particular, cmake check code and devdoc examples (that are all BSD)
> licensed) is irrelevant:
> * it's not included in the final binary rpm
> * BSD combined with LGPL/GPL becomes LGPL/GPL effectively anyway

Sorry, I was mislead by the license declaration in the tarball which is a bit confusing.

GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ only then? And both go in the license tag only?
Or should I make a comment specifying that the GPLv2+ is for the main package and the LGPLv2+ goes to the libs package?

i.e. Like this:
License:        GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+        
#GPLv2+ for the main package and LGPLv2+ for the libs package.

??

2 options:

1.  basically follow my suggestion in comment #12:

in main pkg near top include the snippet (with comment):
# KDE e.V. may determine that future GPL versions are accepted
License: GPLv2 or GPLv3

and in -libs subpkg (under %package libs somewhere) and -devel subpkg (likewise under %package devel somewhere), include (with comment):

# KDE e.V. may determine that future LGPL versions are accepted
License: LGPLv2 or LGPLv3


2.  alternatively, combine this all in main pkg only using:

# this package is GPLv2 or GPLv3 except content under
# lib/ (libhomerun) which is LGPLv2 or LGPLv3
# KDE e.V. may determine that future GPL/LGPL versions are accepted
License: (GPLv2 or GPLv3) and (LGPLv2 or LGPLv3)


Personally, option 1 is simpler and easier to parse, but it's up to you.

You can define it separately for each package:

Name:           homerun
Version:        1.0.0
Release:        2%{?dist}
Summary:        KDE Application Launcher
License:        GPLv2+


%package libs
Summary: Library files of homerun launcher
License: LGPLv2+

%package devel
Summary: Development files for homerun libs
License: LGPLv2+

well, strictly, there is an option 3, simply:

# KDE e.V. may determine that future GPL versions are accepted
License: GPLv2 or GPLv3


since this does accurately reflect the combined work of everything, but this misses describing the possibility that something LGPL-compatible (but not GPL-compat) could link to libhomerun

and, please do not simply use GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+, fedora-legal has already commented that this special KDE case with "KDE e.V. may determine that future GPL versions are accepted" cannot use this variant, and recommended using the forms I already mentioned.

For background, see thread that includes:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2011-February/001541.html

Thanks Rex for the correct way of doing this.

http://ece.uprm.edu/jmarrero/fedora_packaging/homerun/homerun.spec
http://ece.uprm.edu/jmarrero/fedora_packaging/homerun/homerun-1.0.0-3.fc19.src.rpm

old packages: 
http://ece.uprm.edu/jmarrero/fedora_packaging/homerun/old/

Ahh thanks for the links, reeding...

Having read the link, I think I fixed the licensing issue in in the last -3 version.

Let me know If I missed something.

Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5569032

$ rpmlint -i -v *
homerun.src: I: checking
homerun.src: I: checking-url http://userbase.kde.org/Homerun (timeout 10 seconds)
homerun.src: I: checking-url http://download.kde.org/stable/homerun/src/homerun-1.0.0.tar.bz2 (timeout 10 seconds)
homerun.i686: I: checking
homerun.i686: I: checking-url http://userbase.kde.org/Homerun (timeout 10 seconds)
homerun.i686: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

homerun.i686: W: gzipped-svg-icon /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/homerun.svgz
Not all desktop environments that support SVG icons support them gzipped
(.svgz).  Install the icon as plain uncompressed SVG.

homerun.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary homerunviewer
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.

homerun.x86_64: I: checking
homerun.x86_64: I: checking-url http://userbase.kde.org/Homerun (timeout 10 seconds)
homerun.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

homerun.x86_64: W: gzipped-svg-icon /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/homerun.svgz
Not all desktop environments that support SVG icons support them gzipped
(.svgz).  Install the icon as plain uncompressed SVG.

homerun.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary homerunviewer
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.

homerun-debuginfo.i686: I: checking
homerun-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://userbase.kde.org/Homerun (timeout 10 seconds)
homerun-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking
homerun-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://userbase.kde.org/Homerun (timeout 10 seconds)
homerun-devel.i686: I: checking
homerun-devel.i686: W: no-dependency-on homerun/homerun-libs/libhomerun
homerun-devel.i686: E: description-line-too-long C The homerun-devel package contains all the development files of the homerun launcher.
Your description lines must not exceed 80 characters. If a line is exceeding
this number, cut it to fit in two lines.

homerun-devel.i686: I: checking-url http://userbase.kde.org/Homerun (timeout 10 seconds)
homerun-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

homerun-devel.x86_64: I: checking
homerun-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on homerun/homerun-libs/libhomerun
homerun-devel.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C The homerun-devel package contains all the development files of the homerun launcher.
Your description lines must not exceed 80 characters. If a line is exceeding
this number, cut it to fit in two lines.

homerun-devel.x86_64: I: checking-url http://userbase.kde.org/Homerun (timeout 10 seconds)
homerun-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

homerun-libs.i686: I: checking
homerun-libs.i686: I: checking-url http://userbase.kde.org/Homerun (timeout 10 seconds)
homerun-libs.i686: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

homerun-libs.x86_64: I: checking
homerun-libs.x86_64: I: checking-url http://userbase.kde.org/Homerun (timeout 10 seconds)
homerun-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

homerun.spec: I: checking-url http://download.kde.org/stable/homerun/src/homerun-1.0.0.tar.bz2 (timeout 10 seconds)
9 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 12 warnings.


No manpages, no docs in devel packages, no problem at all.
Some issues to be fixed:

The description line for the devel package is too long. Not in your text editor, admittedly. But note, macros will be expanded and then the line becomes longer. Split it in two lines, and rpmlint is happy again.

I don't know how critical is it to ship an svgz icon, but as long as it is recognized correctly by the application, you should use the unzipped version.

Some runtime dependencies are still missing. The main package as well as the -devel package need the -libs package. Add this line to both packages:

Requires: %{name}-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}

> Not all desktop environments that support SVG icons support them gzipped
(.svgz).  Install the icon as plain uncompressed SVG.

Please don't make suggestions for which there aren't packaging guidelines.  This one, imo, is unwise:
1. DE's not supporting svgz is a DE failing/bug, not a packaging one (again, until supported by guidelines saying so)
2.  any desktop that doesn't support svg, should fallback to unscalable icons (and if they don't, again, it's a DE failing/bug, not a packaging problem).

(In reply to Rex Dieter from comment #24)
> > Not all desktop environments that support SVG icons support them gzipped
> (.svgz).  Install the icon as plain uncompressed SVG.
> 
> Please don't make suggestions for which there aren't packaging guidelines. 
> This one, imo, is unwise:
> 1. DE's not supporting svgz is a DE failing/bug, not a packaging one (again,
> until supported by guidelines saying so)

Maybe I'm unwise, but the cited sentence comes from rpmlint directly. I don't know which messages from our best checking tool are serious, and which ones are just blurb and not useful. Good to know that we are now sure to have another message which belongs to the latter group :)

OK, then leave the svgz icon as is. BTW, this senseless message from rpmlint is worth to be reported as a bug.

> 2.  any desktop that doesn't support svg, should fallback to unscalable
> icons (and if they don't, again, it's a DE failing/bug, not a packaging
> problem).

The question is, does it make sense at all to use a KDE-related application launcher on a minimalistic desktop which doesn't support SVG? We shouldn't bother with problems which come up due to "patchwork" use of tools which are not intended for. An example from the "other side": The dockbar "Docky" is designed for Gnome, and the included folder viewer cannot be configured so that Dolphin will be opened. Means, the applet takes the file manager association from Gio, which is not directly configurable. Besides the lots of dependencies (including all the Mono stuff) it is not fully usable anyway, and this is not to be considered as a bug.

> OK, then leave the svgz icon as is. BTW, this senseless message from rpmlint is
worth to be reported as a bug.

Indeed, it's a long-standing problem that rpmlint's policies sometimes do not match our current guidelines.  (and a pet-peave of mine, why I'm commenting here).  My point is SHOULD/MUST packaging guidelines trump what rpmlint says.

http://ece.uprm.edu/jmarrero/fedora_packaging/homerun/homerun.spec
http://ece.uprm.edu/jmarrero/fedora_packaging/homerun/homerun-1.0.0-4.fc19.src.rpm

old packages: 
http://ece.uprm.edu/jmarrero/fedora_packaging/homerun/old/

Koji Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5569387

$ rpmlint -i -v *
homerun.src: I: checking
homerun.src: I: checking-url http://userbase.kde.org/Homerun (timeout 10 seconds)
homerun.src: I: checking-url http://download.kde.org/stable/homerun/src/homerun-1.0.0.tar.bz2 (timeout 10 seconds)
homerun.i686: I: checking
homerun.i686: I: checking-url http://userbase.kde.org/Homerun (timeout 10 seconds)
homerun.i686: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

homerun.i686: W: gzipped-svg-icon /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/homerun.svgz
Not all desktop environments that support SVG icons support them gzipped
(.svgz).  Install the icon as plain uncompressed SVG.

homerun.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary homerunviewer
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.

homerun.x86_64: I: checking
homerun.x86_64: I: checking-url http://userbase.kde.org/Homerun (timeout 10 seconds)
homerun.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

homerun.x86_64: W: gzipped-svg-icon /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/homerun.svgz
Not all desktop environments that support SVG icons support them gzipped
(.svgz).  Install the icon as plain uncompressed SVG.

homerun.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary homerunviewer
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.

homerun-debuginfo.i686: I: checking
homerun-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://userbase.kde.org/Homerun (timeout 10 seconds)
homerun-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking
homerun-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://userbase.kde.org/Homerun (timeout 10 seconds)
homerun-devel.i686: I: checking
homerun-devel.i686: I: checking-url http://userbase.kde.org/Homerun (timeout 10 seconds)
homerun-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

homerun-devel.x86_64: I: checking
homerun-devel.x86_64: I: checking-url http://userbase.kde.org/Homerun (timeout 10 seconds)
homerun-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

homerun-libs.i686: I: checking
homerun-libs.i686: I: checking-url http://userbase.kde.org/Homerun (timeout 10 seconds)
homerun-libs.i686: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

homerun-libs.x86_64: I: checking
homerun-libs.x86_64: I: checking-url http://userbase.kde.org/Homerun (timeout 10 seconds)
homerun-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

homerun.spec: I: checking-url http://download.kde.org/stable/homerun/src/homerun-1.0.0.tar.bz2 (timeout 10 seconds)
9 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.


The svgz issue and the missing manpages and docs have been discussed already.



---------------------------------
key:

[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
---------------------------------

[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
    Special licensing according to the decisions from KDE e.V.

[.] 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.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
    $ sha256sum *
    7748fde872263dc66203d03cdcd3b71f3aae1d83718881ae7e08548d357a65a9  homerun-1.0.0.tar.bz2
    7748fde872263dc66203d03cdcd3b71f3aae1d83718881ae7e08548d357a65a9  homerun-1.0.0.tar.bz2.orig

[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture.
[.] 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.
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[+] 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.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] 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.
[+] 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.
[+] 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)
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] 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).
[.] 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.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[+] MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package.
[+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.
[+] 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.
[+] 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. 
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.


[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[.] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
    See Koji build above (which uses Mock anyway).
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
[.] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
[+] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency.
[.] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb.
[.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself.
[.] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.


Still one issue:

The /sbin/ldconfig call belongs to the -libs package:

%post libs
/sbin/ldconfig

%postun libs
/sbin/ldconfig

That's why the additional call in %post and %postun is unneeded. The main package doesn't contain any libs. Remove the appropriate lines before importing your files to the Git repo.


----------------

PACKAGE APPROVED

----------------

(In reply to Mario Blättermann from comment #29)
> Still one issue:
> 
> The /sbin/ldconfig call belongs to the -libs package:
> 
> %post libs
> /sbin/ldconfig
> 
> %postun libs
> /sbin/ldconfig
> 
> That's why the additional call in %post and %postun is unneeded. The main
> package doesn't contain any libs. Remove the appropriate lines before
> importing your files to the Git repo.
> 
To clarify this:

%{_kde4_libdir}/kde4/homerun_source_recentdocuments.so
%{_kde4_libdir}/kde4/plasma_applet_homerunlauncher.so

Those files are libraries, but not in a common linker path, they are just for private use in Homerun itself. @Rex, please correct me if I'm wrong.

correct, those are largely plugins, and not in linker path, so no need for ldconfig in the main pkg

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: homerun
Short Description: Application Launcher for KDE
Owners: jmarrero
Branches: f18 f19
InitialCC:

Thank you both for your time and help :)
I will post here the src.rpm and spec with the %post and %postun fixed.

http://ece.uprm.edu/jmarrero/fedora_packaging/homerun/homerun.spec
http://ece.uprm.edu/jmarrero/fedora_packaging/homerun/homerun-1.0.0-5.fc19.src.rpm

old packages: 
http://ece.uprm.edu/jmarrero/fedora_packaging/homerun/old/

Koji Scratch Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5569787

OK, already approved anyway.

Git done (by process-git-requests).

homerun-1.0.0-5.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/homerun-1.0.0-5.fc18

homerun-1.0.0-5.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/homerun-1.0.0-5.fc19

homerun-1.0.0-5.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.

homerun-1.0.0-5.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.

homerun-1.0.0-5.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.