Bug 1371627

New src rpm is  https://fedorapeople.org/~jfch2222/inih-36-2.el6.src.rpm
Some review hints were integrated into it.

Successfuly built on koji
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15438634

Preliminary review:

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

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

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

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

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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

Generic:
[?]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Package should work even on EL-6
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[-]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in inih-
     devel
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: 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.
     http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15438634
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

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

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


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: inih-36-1.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm
          inih-devel-36-1.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm
          inih-36-1.el7.centos.src.rpm
inih.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 36-1 ['36-1.el7.centos', '36-1.centos']
inih-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.


Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: inih-debuginfo-36-1.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
inih-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
inih-debuginfo.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
inih.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 36-1 ['36-1.el7.centos', '36-1.centos']
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.


Requires
--------
inih-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    inih
    libinih.so.0()(64bit)

inih (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /sbin/ldconfig
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
inih-devel:
    inih-devel
    inih-devel(x86-64)

inih:
    inih
    inih(x86-64)
    libinih.so.0()(64bit)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/benhoyt/inih/archive/r36.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : f1fa09e5369cbe43495150c5b19c6c6ad035f9e83004418686f07918b5e427de
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f1fa09e5369cbe43495150c5b19c6c6ad035f9e83004418686f07918b5e427de


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n inih -v -D DISTTAG=epel7 -x CheckOwnDirs
Buildroot used: epel-7-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

> gcc -shared -o libinih.so.0.%{version} -Wl,-soname,libinih.so.0 ini.o
missing %{__global_ldflags}

> Source0:  https://github.com/benhoyt/inih/archive/r%{version}.tar.gz
Source0: %{url}/archive/r%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

> %setup -q -n inih-r%{version}
%setup -q -n %{name}-r%{version}

> %clean
> rm -rf %{buildroot}
remove this

> %defattr(-,root,root,-)
remove this

* Missing BuildRequires: gcc
* Group tag is not needed
* Add "-p" to all "install" invocations to preserve timestamp

modified to my best.
relese is now 3
download is on fedorapeople.org/~jfch2222

Almost good.

--- inih.spec~	2016-08-31 06:56:31.479004801 +0200
+++ inih.spec	2016-08-31 07:04:53.338189890 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
+%global sover 0
+
 Name:     inih
 Version:  36
 Release:  3%{?dist}
@@ -5,7 +7,7 @@
 
 License:  BSD
 URL:      https://github.com/benhoyt/inih
-Source0:  https://github.com/benhoyt/inih/archive/r%{version}/%{name}-r%{version}.tar.gz
+Source0:  %{url}/archive/r%{version}/%{name}-r%{version}.tar.gz
 
 BuildRequires: gcc
 
@@ -35,32 +37,25 @@
 
 %build
 gcc -c -fPIC %{optflags} ini.c
-gcc -shared %{?__global_ldflags} -o libinih.so.0.%{version} -Wl,-soname,libinih.so.0 ini.o
-
+gcc -shared %{?__global_ldflags} -o libinih.so.%{sover}.%{version} -Wl,-soname,libinih.so.%{sover} ini.o
 
 %install
-mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_libdir}
-mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_includedir}
-install -p -m 644 ini.h %{buildroot}%{_includedir}/ini.h
-install -p -m 755 libinih.so* %{buildroot}%{_libdir}
-ln -s libinih.so.0.%{version} %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/libinih.so.0
-ln -s libinih.so.0.%{version} %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/libinih.so
-
+install -D -p -m 0644 ini.h %{buildroot}%{_includedir}/ini.h
+install -D -p -m 0755 lib%{name}.so.%{sover}.%{version} %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.%{sover}.%{version}
+ln -s lib%{name}.so.%{sover}.%{version} %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.%{sover}
+ln -s lib%{name}.so.%{sover}.%{version} %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so
 
 %post -p /sbin/ldconfig
 %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
 
-
 %files
-%doc README.md LICENSE.txt
-%{_libdir}/libinih.so.0.%{version}
-%{_libdir}/libinih.so.0
-
+%license LICENSE.txt
+%doc README.md
+%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.%{sover}*
 
 %files devel
 %{_includedir}/ini.h
-%{_libdir}/libinih.so
-
+%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so
 
 %changelog
 * Tue Aug 30 2016 Jan F. Chadima <jfch> - 36-3


You can simplify spec as written above. though marking license by %license is not optional.

Almost all done but %license tag causes local compilation fail.
Looking at other rawhide srpms I didn't see it anywhere.

(In reply to jfch2222 from comment #7)
> Almost all done but %license tag causes local compilation fail.
> Looking at other rawhide srpms I didn't see it anywhere.

$ find -type f -name '*.spec' | xargs grep "^%license"
./hawkey/hawkey.spec:%license COPYING
./vte291/vte291.spec:%license COPYING
./python-iniparse/python-iniparse.spec:%license LICENSE LICENSE-PSF
./python-docker-squash/python-docker-squash.spec:%license LICENSE
./python-xunitparser/python-xunitparser.spec:%license LICENSE
[snip]

There is some guidelines about that. Though it fails only on EL6 I guess.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#Previously_required_boilerplate

As a workaround you can add into beginning of spec:
%if 0%{?rhel} && 0%{?rhel} <= 6
%{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc}
%endif

and it will start working.

> 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 %license.

implemented %license now
release is 5

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/inih