Bug 744433

Update :
Spec URL: http://rpms.nicoleau-fabien.net/SPECS/libquvi.spec
SRPM URL: http://rpms.nicoleau-fabien.net/SRPMS/libquvi-0.4.0-2.fc15.src.rpm

Changelog : 
fix requires

Update :
Spec URL: http://rpms.nicoleau-fabien.net/SPECS/libquvi.spec
SRPM URL: http://rpms.nicoleau-fabien.net/SRPMS/libquvi-0.4.0-3.fc15.src.rpm

Changelog : 
- Fix builrequires

rpmlint output :
[builder@FEDORABOX rpmbuild]$ rpmlint /home/builder/rpmbuild/SRPMS/libquvi-0.4.0-3.fc15.src.rpm /home/builder/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libquvi-0.4.0-3.fc15.x86_64.rpm /home/builder/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libquvi-devel-0.4.0-3.fc15.x86_64.rpm /home/builder/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libquvi-debuginfo-0.4.0-3.fc15.x86_64.rpm
libquvi.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libquvi-scripts
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.

The package looks quite good. Just one minor points: you can safely remove the dependency on pkgconfig for the devel package; it is detected automatically since it provides .pc files:
   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Pkgconfig_Files

Update :
Spec URL: http://rpms.nicoleau-fabien.net/SPECS/libquvi.spec
SRPM URL: http://rpms.nicoleau-fabien.net/SRPMS/libquvi-0.4.0-4.fc15.src.rpm

Changelog :
- Remove the pkgconfig require for the devel package

rpmlint output :
[builder@FEDORABOX ~]$ rpmlint /home/builder/rpmbuild/SRPMS/libquvi-0.4.0-4.fc15.src.rpm /home/builder/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libquvi-0.4.0-4.fc15.x86_64.rpm /home/builder/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libquvi-devel-0.4.0-4.fc15.x86_64.rpm /home/builder/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libquvi-debuginfo-0.4.0-4.fc15.x86_64.rpm
libquvi.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libquvi-scripts
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
[builder@FEDORABOX ~]$

Sorry for this late answer. Here is the review:

 +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing

MUST Items:
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[+] 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.
[+] 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.
85c47035105b6b523a28793d4f6da9f1
[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported 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.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro.
[+] MUST: Every binary RPM package 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: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review
[+] 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 package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[+] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} 
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

This package is APPROVED.

Thank you (again :D) for this review Mohamed.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: libquvi
Short Description: A cross-platform library for parsing flash media stream
Owners: eponyme
Branches: 
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: libquvi
New Branches: F16
Owners: eponyme

Git done (by process-git-requests).