*** Bug 1034870 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

I'll review it.

The developers at Adacore worried that the code generation step might produce different code than it does in their environment, so this version compares the files and verifies that the code is identical:

https://www.rombobjörn.se/packages/GtkAda3-3.4.2-2/GtkAda3.spec
https://www.rombobjörn.se/packages/GtkAda3-3.4.2-2/GtkAda3-3.4.2-2.fc20.src.rpm

I'm sorry for the delay. I'll process with review next week.

Issues:
=======
- Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
  Note: GtkAda3-doc : /usr/share/doc/GtkAda3/examples/testgtk/opengl/lw.h
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages

It's OK https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Examples

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

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.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2 or later)
     (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 17 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/pavel/repo
     /GtkAda-review/review-GtkAda3/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/gps(GtkAda-devel),
     /usr/lib64/gtkada(GtkAda-devel), /usr/include/gtkada(GtkAda-devel),
     /usr/share/gps/plug-ins(GtkAda-devel)
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: 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.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 3 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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist
[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:
[-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in GtkAda3-doc
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

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

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


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: GtkAda3-3.4.2-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm
          GtkAda3-devel-3.4.2-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm
          GtkAda3-doc-3.4.2-2.fc20.noarch.rpm
          GtkAda3-3.4.2-2.fc20.src.rpm
GtkAda3.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found sv
GtkAda3.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/lib64/libgtkada-3.4.so.2
GtkAda3-devel.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/gtkada-config.1.gz 14: warning: macro `l' not defined
GtkAda3-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gtkada-dialog
GtkAda3-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/GtkAda3/examples/testgtk/create_label.adb
GtkAda3-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/GtkAda3/examples/testgtk/marble.xpm
GtkAda3-doc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/GtkAda3/gtkada_ug/_sources/license.txt
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint GtkAda3 GtkAda3-doc GtkAda3-devel
GtkAda3.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found sv
GtkAda3.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/lib64/libgtkada-3.4.so.2
GtkAda3-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/GtkAda3/examples/testgtk/create_label.adb
GtkAda3-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/GtkAda3/examples/testgtk/marble.xpm
GtkAda3-doc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/GtkAda3/gtkada_ug/_sources/license.txt
GtkAda3-devel.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/gtkada-config.1.gz 14: warning: macro `l' not defined
GtkAda3-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gtkada-dialog
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'




==============================================

Do we really have to package gps plugins? GPS is not packaged yet and review is died for a long time.
I can see testgtk description in the Makefile. Should/can we test build in %check? Have not tested it tbh.

(In reply to Pavel Zhukov from comment #5)
> Do we really have to package gps plugins? GPS is not packaged yet and review
> is died for a long time.

I suppose we don't have to package them. Do we have to exclude them? It's one little file, it does no harm when GPS isn't installed, and it's packaged with the documentation, not with the library itself. I still hope we'll get GPS packaged some day, and when that happens this package will be ready for it.

> I can see testgtk description in the Makefile. Should/can we test build in
> %check? Have not tested it tbh.

TestGTK and Testcairo were already built together with the library. I see now that I can easily avoid building them in the build phase, and then build them in the check phase instead. That way I don't need to delete the binaries from the documentation.

These demo programs are no replacement for a testsuite, but it doesn't hurt to build them to verify that it is at least possible to link programs to the library.

https://www.rombobjörn.se/packages/GtkAda3-3.4.2-3/GtkAda3.spec
https://www.rombobjörn.se/packages/GtkAda3-3.4.2-3/GtkAda3-3.4.2-3.fc20.src.rpm

(In reply to Björn Persson from comment #6)

> I suppose we don't have to package them. Do we have to exclude them? It's
> one little file, it does no harm when GPS isn't installed, and it's packaged
> with the documentation, not with the library itself. I still hope we'll get
> GPS packaged some day, and when that happens this package will be ready for
> it.
> 
Yes, You're right it's little. But we don't know if gps v5 or v6 (or maybe v8) will be packaged and if the plugins will be compatible with this version even. This is just "untested files" and I *prefer* to delete them. Once gps is packaged it's easy to test plugins and remove/comment out one string.

Here's a version without the GPS plug-in. It's also upgraded to 3.8.2, and the OpenGL bindings now compile.

https://www.rombobjörn.se/packages/GtkAda3-3.8.2-1/GtkAda3.spec
https://www.rombobjörn.se/packages/GtkAda3-3.8.2-1/GtkAda3-3.8.2-1.fc20.src.rpm

Thank you! 
Sorry for the long review. 

==
APPROVED

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: GtkAda3
Short Description: GTKada 3, an Ada binding to GTK+ 3
Upstream URL: http://libre.adacore.com/tools/gtkada/
Owners: rombobeorn
Branches: f19 f20 epel7
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

GtkAda3-3.8.2-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/GtkAda3-3.8.2-1.fc19

GtkAda3-3.8.2-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/GtkAda3-3.8.2-1.fc20

GtkAda3-3.8.2-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.

GtkAda3-3.8.2-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.

GtkAda3-3.8.2-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.