(Not a formal review, just an observation:)

Your subpackage naming looks very much OpenSUSE-, Mandriva/Mageia-, or Debian-style to me. In Fedora, we do not usually name library packages with lib*%{_sonum}. We use lib* naming only where it is part of the upstream name, and we only use version suffixes for non-default compatibility versions (and we use the human-readable version number rather than the soversion, though in this case the soversion 2 matches the human-readable major version).

More idiomatic Fedora subpackage naming would be something like:
%package plugin-authentication
(i.e., a cutelyst-plugin-authentication subpackage) etc.

It is also not clear to me whether we really need all those subpackages, but maybe we do. That is up to you to decide.

(There is no requirement in Fedora to create a separate subpackage for every .so file, though it may make sense to do it anyway, depending on how likely applications are to cherry-pick only specific plugins and on how many dependencies those plugins have.)

FWIW, I consider the package design highly problematic. Both at the spec level and for the package users.

The many libCutelyst2* subpackages packages don't contain plugins, but [!] system libraries. To make it worse, there are many automatic inter-dependencies in those subpackages, so the benefit of putting each lib into its own subpkg is minuscule or non-existant. Even the base program pulls in one of the subpackages, which in turn pulls in more subpackages. The -devel package pulls in all lib subpkgs. Over time, dependencies will change, libs will come and go, and the packaging maintenance requirements will be high. Also with regard to handling/removing obsolete subpackages.

The spec file adds dependency bloat, which isn't arch-specific and therefore doesn't add much value:

  Requires:       %{_pluginSession}%{_sonum} = %{version}-%{release}

  -->
  libCutelyst2Qt5Session.so.2()(64bit)
  libCutelyst2Qt5Session2 = 2.9.0-1.fc31

The first dep is automatic and arch-specific. The explicit dep from the spec file adds V-R but doesn't follow the base package guidelines and would be satisfied by the .i686 package due to multiarch repositories. The base package guidelines (for %_isa usage) should also be followed in other explicit "Requires:" tags that add deps on arch-specific packages, such as "uwsgi".


Qt translation files would be found with %find_lang --with-qt --all-name


The packaging should be simplified *a lot*.

Taking this review.

This doesn't currently build as is, could you follow the steps here to adjust for Fedora 33's recent CMake changes?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/CMake_to_do_out-of-source_builds

Also bump the version packaged, since 2.13 is now out.

Agreed with previous commenters that:
- %find_lang will find the translation files
- try starting with only either two packages for now (cutelyst and cutelyst-devel), or three (if the binaries are not needed by running apps and can be packaged separately). Those will be easier to maintain
- see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_requiring_base_package for having cutelyst-devel requires the right architecture for cutelyst (what Michael Schwendt was referring to)

You enabled building tests, but they were never run. Add

%check
%ctest

after the %install section, this should run them.

This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.