MUST Items:

 - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines ***

Package is an agglomeration of 29 source tarballs. I'm not going to tell you to
split it; so it's OK with me, even if the name doesn't match a particular
upstream tarball.

 - Spec file matches base package name. - OK
 - Spec has consistant macro usage. - OK
 - Meets Packaging Guidelines. - OK
 - License - MIT/X11 (albeit with many copyright holders )
 - License field in spec matches - ***

Should be changed to 'MIT/X11' (to match other X packages) or 'MIT' (to pacify
rpmlint).

 - License file included in package ***

Please include the various module copying. Yes, this is a mess. I
suggest in the build loop adding a:

 mv COPYING COPYING-${dir%%-*}

and adding a %doc */COPYING* directive.

 - Spec in American English - OK
 - Spec is legible. - OK
 - Sources match upstream md5sum: - OK (that was fun)

 - BuildRequires correct - OK
 - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. - OK
 - Package has a correct %clean section. - OK
 - Package has correct buildroot - OK
 - Package is code or permissible content. - OK
 - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - OK

 - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig - ***

Should require pkgconfig.

 - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. - OK
 - Package has no duplicate files in %files. - OK
 - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. - OK
 - Package owns all the directories it creates. - ***

A Requires on pkgconfig should handle %{_libdir}/pkgconfig

 - No rpmlint output. - ***

Source rpmlint:
W: xorg-x11-proto-devel invalid-license The Open Group License

See above.

W: xorg-x11-proto-devel unversioned-explicit-obsoletes XFree86-devel
W: xorg-x11-proto-devel unversioned-explicit-obsoletes xorg-x11-devel

These aren't coming back, so it's OK with me. However, it's safer to add
a version for the last version of each.

W: xorg-x11-proto-devel mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 89, tab: line 73)

Feel free to fix if you want.

Binary rpmlint:

W: xorg-x11-proto-devel invalid-license The Open Group License

See above.

E: xorg-x11-proto-devel obsolete-not-provided XFree86-devel
E: xorg-x11-proto-devel obsolete-not-provided xorg-x11-devel

Since this was a package split, this package alone does not provide the
functionality of xorg-x11-devel, etc. (no libX11, libXext, etc.) So this should
be OK.

E: xorg-x11-proto-devel no-binary

Not a bug.

SHOULD Items:

 - Should build in mock. - OK
 - Should have sane scriptlets. - OK
 - Should have dist tag - OK
 - Should package latest version - didn't check
 - check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) ***

Bug 229336 should be handled. Adding a simple:

%doc randrproto-*/randrproto.txt damageproto-*/damageproto.txt

along with a "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_datadir}/doc" in %install should handle it.

> W: xorg-x11-proto-devel unversioned-explicit-obsoletes XFree86-devel
> W: xorg-x11-proto-devel unversioned-explicit-obsoletes xorg-x11-devel
> 
> These aren't coming back, so it's OK with me. However, it's safer to add
> a version for the last version of each.

So like:

Obsoletes: XFree86-devel <= 4.3.0

?

Did the rest in 7.2-5.

Yes, along those lines. Might need to add an epoch if
XFree86-devel/xorg-x11-devel had one. Admittedly, all it's doing is helping the
case if we ever switch back to XFree86, which is obviously going to happen any
day now.

Mmm, inclined to just not bother really.

Normally the %doc macro is used (to put it in the rpm-defined docdir of
/usr/share/doc/%{name}-%{version} - the way you've done it makes it not actually
use the package name.

Imagine that I don't understand how %doc works (I don't) and that the RPM manual
doesn't document it very well (it doesn't).

%doc is a magic macro interpreted by RPM during the build process. If it is
present, rpm, after the %install, %brp-compress, etc. processes, does:

cd <build dir>
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version}
cp -p <all things listed in %doc> $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version}

It then marks all these files as 'documentation' in the package header.

So, all paths in %doc are relative to the rpm build directory (exploded source
tree).

Does 7.2-6 look better?

Looks good. Feel free to close.

Hooray!