rpmlint on Binary rpm gave me
E: libxkbfile zero-length /usr/share/doc/libxkbfile-1.0.4/AUTHORS
E: libxkbfile zero-length /usr/share/doc/libxkbfile-1.0.4/INSTALL
E: libxkbfile zero-length /usr/share/doc/libxkbfile-1.0.4/README
  => Remove zero-length files from installing them on system.

W: libxkbfile invalid-license MIT/X11
The value of the License tag was not recognized.  Known values are:
"AFL", "Affero GPL", "ASL 1.0", "ASL 1.0+", "ASL 1.1", "ASL 1.1+", "ASL 2.0",
"ASL 2.0+", "APSL 2.0", "APSL 2.0+", "Artistic clarified", "Boost", "BSD with
advertising", "BSD", "CeCILL", "CDDL", "CPL", "Condor", "Cryptix", "EPL",
"eCos", "EFL 2.0", "EFL 2.0+", "EU Datagrid", "GPL+", "GPLv2", "GPLv2+",
"GPLv3", "GPLv3+", "IBM", "iMatix", "Intel ACPI", "Interbase", "Jabber",
"LaTeX", "LGPL+", "LGPLv2", "LGPLv2 with exceptions", "LGPLv2+", "LGPLv3",
"LGPLv3+", "LPL", "mecab-ipadic", "MIT", "MPLv1.0", "MPLv1.0+", "MPLv1.1",
"MPLv1.1+", "NCSA", "NGPL", "NOSL", "Netscape", "Nokia", "OpenLDAP", "OSL
1.0", "OSL 1.0+", "OpenSSL", "Phorum", "PHP", "Public Domain", "Python",
"QPL", "RPSL", "Ruby", "Sleepycat", "SMLNJL", "SISSL", "SPL", "Vim", "VNLSL",
"VSL", "W3C", "WTFPL", "wxWindows", "xinetd", "Zend", "ZPLv1.0", "ZPLv1.0+",
"ZPLv2.0", "ZPLv2.0+", "zlib", "CDL", "FBSDDL", "GFDL", "Open Publication",
"CC-BY", "CC-BY-SA", "DSL", "Free Art", "Arphic", "SIL Open Font",
"Redistributable, no modification permitted", "Freely redistributable without
restriction".
 =>update license tag. (MIT looks ok but X11 is not recognized or this warning
can be ignored then)

W: libxkbfile obsolete-not-provided XFree86-libs
If a package is obsoleted by a compatible replacement, the obsoleted package
must also be provided in order to provide clean upgrade paths and not cause
unnecessary dependency breakage.  If the obsoleting package is not a compatible
replacement for the old one, leave out the provides.

W: libxkbfile obsolete-not-provided xorg-x11-libs
If a package is obsoleted by a compatible replacement, the obsoleted package
must also be provided in order to provide clean upgrade paths and not cause
unnecessary dependency breakage.  If the obsoleting package is not a compatible
replacement for the old one, leave out the provides.
=> add Provides: tag with versions
   check
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-3cfc1ea19d28975faad9d56f70a6ae55661d3c3d

This is merge-review where maintainer should be assumed to be capable of solving
simple packaging issues and not required to ask reviewer to give patch.

sandmann,
   As you asked me to provide patch here it is

--- libxkbfile.spec     2007-08-22 02:13:38.000000000 +0530
+++ libxkbfile-new.spec 2008-01-11 16:26:54.000000000 +0530
@@ -1,15 +1,14 @@
 Summary: X.Org X11 libxkbfile runtime library
 Name: libxkbfile
 Version: 1.0.4
-Release: 3%{?dist}
-License: MIT/X11
+Release: 4%{?dist}
+License: MIT
 Group: System Environment/Libraries
 URL: http://www.x.org
 BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
 
 Source0: ftp://ftp.x.org/pub/individual/lib/libxkbfile/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2
 
-BuildRequires: pkgconfig
 BuildRequires: xorg-x11-proto-devel
 BuildRequires: libX11-devel
 
@@ -64,7 +63,7 @@
 
 %files
 %defattr(-,root,root,-)
-%doc AUTHORS COPYING README ChangeLog
+%doc COPYING ChangeLog
 %{_libdir}/libxkbfile.so.1
 %{_libdir}/libxkbfile.so.1.0.2
 
@@ -85,6 +84,9 @@
 %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/xkbfile.pc
 
 %changelog
+* Fri Jan 11 2008 parag <paragn> 1.0.4-4
+- Merge-review #226077
+
 * Tue Aug 21 2007 Adam Jackson <ajax> - 1.0.4-3
 - Rebuild for build id
 


Review this patch and open ACL for this package if you are not have enough time
to resolve this ticket.

Same question: Do AUTHORS and README belong in %doc, or not?

(In reply to comment #4)
> Same question: Do AUTHORS and README belong in %doc, or not?

Yes, they do. All those ALL-CAPS files should end up in %doc (except for INSTALL).

I think you really really need to either give up your package maintainance or
look how reviewing of other packages done.
Are you not aware of rpmlint command? Haven't you seen rpmlint output I posted
in comment #1? That really says packaging zero length files is packaging error.
This is the reason Merge-review tickets got open as core packages never gone
through any reviews and also packaging guidelines formed in recent years.

Why should we make packages to install zero-length files on fedora system and
increase unnecessary file listing? 

CVS got SPEC cleanups changes now.

APPROVED.