Sorry for not uploading before, also the patch to the source referenced in the specfile: https://rfairley.fedorapeople.org/package-review/0001-Add-LICENSE-files-1.patch

New spec/SRPM for version 0.1.2 which was published, including the license files.

Spec URL: https://rfairley.fedorapeople.org/package-review/rust-readwrite/rust-readwrite.spec
SRPM URL: https://rfairley.fedorapeople.org/package-review/rust-readwrite-0.1.2-1.fc33.src.rpm

> ===== MUST items =====

> Generic:
> [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
>      other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
>      Guidelines.

PASS: dual license of MIT + Apache

> [ ]: 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". 6 files have unknown
>      license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
>      /home/vagrant/1831106-rust-readwrite/licensecheck.txt

PASS: `License:        MIT or ASL 2.0`


> [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.

PASS: all subpackages require main devel package.

> [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
>      must be documented in the spec.

Not Applicable: the package is not dual licensed

> [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
> [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
> [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
> [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
> [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
> [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
> [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
>      names).
> [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
> [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
> [ ]: 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.
> [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
> [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
> [ ]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 files.
> [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines


All of the above either pass or are not applicable.


> [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 must own all directories that it creates.
> [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]: Dist tag is present.
> [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
> [x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
> [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
> [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.

PASS: the files are provided in the toplevel of the repo: https://github.com/vi/readwrite

> [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
> [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
>      Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust-
>      readwrite-devel , rust-readwrite+default-devel , rust-
>      readwrite+futures-devel , rust-readwrite+tokio-devel , rust-
>      readwrite+tokio-io-devel
> [ ]: Package functions as described.
> [ ]: Latest version is packaged.
> [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
> [ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
>      publishes signatures.
>      Note: gpgverify is not used.
> [ ]: 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.
> [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
>      files.

All of the above either pass or are not applicable


> [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]: 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).

All of the messages are warnings

> [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

package LGTM

SCM repo requested: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/24756

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