- Use pkgconfig if possible:

BuildRequires:  gcc-c++
BuildRequires:  fltk-devel
BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(portaudiocpp)
BuildRequires:  lame-devel
BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(vorbis)
BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(ogg)
BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(flac)
BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(opus)
BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(samplerate)
BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(fdk-aac)
BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(dbus-1)
BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(x11)
BuildRequires:  desktop-file-utils
BuildRequires:  autoconf
BuildRequires:  libappstream-glib

 - Notify upstream about their incorrect FSF address in COPYING

Package approved.


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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "GPL (v2 or later)",
     "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or
     later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
     License", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2 or later)", "BSD
     2-clause "Simplified" License". 267 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/butt/review-butt/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: 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.
[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.
[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.
     Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 5 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 %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
     desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[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:
[-]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in butt
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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]: 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]: 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]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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: butt-0.1.17-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          butt-debuginfo-0.1.17-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          butt-debugsource-0.1.17-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          butt-0.1.17-1.fc31.src.rpm
butt.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/butt/COPYING
butt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary butt
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.

Thanks for the review Robert.

I'll convert those devel packages to pkgconfig format when I import the package.

I sent upstream an email about the FSF address.

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/butt

While verifying the pkgconfig provides, I re-read the guidelines for this [0], and noticed that it only applies when the software is using pkg-config to locate the library.  In this case most of the libraries are detected by AC_CHECK_LIB [1], with the exception of dbus, which is detected with PKG_CHECK_MODULES.  As such the only change I made was:

-BuildRequires:  dbus-devel
+BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(dbus-1)


[0]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PkgConfigBuildRequires/
[1]: https://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/autoconf.html#Libraries

(In reply to Carl George from comment #4)
> While verifying the pkgconfig provides, I re-read the guidelines for this
> [0], and noticed that it only applies when the software is using pkg-config
> to locate the library.  In this case most of the libraries are detected by
> AC_CHECK_LIB [1], with the exception of dbus, which is detected with
> PKG_CHECK_MODULES.  As such the only change I made was:
> 
> -BuildRequires:  dbus-devel
> +BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(dbus-1)
> 
> 
> [0]:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
> PkgConfigBuildRequires/
> [1]: https://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/autoconf.html#Libraries

I kind of disagree with this. This is true that the guidelines say: "Fedora packages which use pkg-config to build against a library" but the rationale expressed below:

"Where package names change, and/or a required pkgconfig module is later provided by a different package, these hard-coded dependencies break."

is true even if the package doesn't use it internally.

For posterity, the guidelines currently state:

> Fedora packages which use pkg-config to build against a library (e.g. 'foo') on which they depend, SHOULD express their build dependency correctly as pkgconfig(foo).

butt doesn't use pkg-config to build against any of those other libraries.  I understand the intent of trying to guard against future name changes, but if it's not using pkg-config then a dependency on pkgconfig(foo) would be incorrect.

Of course if the guidelines are updated to the effect of "use the pkgconfig(foo) form whenever possible, even if the software isn't using pkg-config to build against the library", I'll happily update the spec file as needed.  As it stands, this is just a SHOULD item, so I don't think we need to come to an agreement on it.

As always Robert thanks for your review and your input.

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1246464

butt-0.1.17-2.fc30 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-1f1a6dbd50

butt-0.1.17-2.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-1f1a6dbd50

butt-0.1.17-3.fc30 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-f8ffbae5a7

butt-0.1.17-3.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-f8ffbae5a7

butt-0.1.17-3.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.