OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (GPL)
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
svn checkout diff matches.
OK - 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 - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install

OK - 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.
See below - No rpmlint output.
OK - final provides and requires are sane

SHOULD Items:

OK - Should build in mock.
OK - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version

Issues:

1. You should not use a _ in the name... from the PackageNamingGuidelines:
"When naming packages for Fedora, the maintainer should use the dash '-' as the
delimiter for name parts. The maintainer should NOT use an underscore '_',
a plus '+', or a period '.' as a delimiter." There are some exceptions after that,
do you think this meets one of those? I think it would be nice to use a -

2. The included source seems to already contain the compiled binaries, so the
build says: "make: Nothing to be done for `all'." and uses the included binaries.
Please make a clean source checkout and make sure there are no included binaries.

3. rpmlint says:
E: telescope-server-debuginfo empty-debuginfo-package

Looks like the Makefile strips the binaries. Can you patch it not to do so?
LDFLAGS = -s

Also, can you confirm it's using RPM_OPT_FLAGS for compiling?

4. Is the versioning right here?
Shouldn't it be:
0-0.1.20070315svn.%{?dist}
Then the next version for any package change would be:
0-0.2.20070315svn.%{?dist}

1) would you prefer telescope-server  or just telescopeserver?

2) I'm an idiot

3) I'll poke at the Makefile
   I'll see if I can patch the makefile to use $RPM_OPT_FLAGS

4) yeah i think i did goof up the release numbering. First time I had to do an
svn pull.

-jef

Does this fix all the issues? I think its pulling in the RPM_OPT_FLAGS correctly
now, and blanked the LDFLAGS. I've addressed the naming and release numbering.
look in  http://jspaleta.thecodergeek.com/Fedora%20SRPMS/telescope-server/
for the mock build

SPEC:
http://jspaleta.thecodergeek.com/Fedora%20SRPMS/telescope-server/telescope-server.spec
SRPM:
http://jspaleta.thecodergeek.com/Fedora%20SRPMS/telescope-server/telescope-server-0-0.1.20070315.fc7.src.rpm

-jef

(In reply to comment #3): 

Yeah, that appears to solve all the issues I was seeing. 
I don't see any further blockers, so this package is APPROVED. 
Don't forget to close this RAWHIDE once its been imported and built. 

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: telescope-server
Short Description: Opensource Telescope control servers to interface with stellarium
Owners: jspaleta
Branches: devel, FC-6
InitialCC: 

done

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: stellarium
Updated Fedora Ownders: Jochen,kwizart

Shouldn't this review request be closed?

You'll see from the bug activity that it was closed... the package change request
from comment 7 re-opened the ticket.  I don't know exactly why a change request
for stellarium was put into the telescope-server review ticket. The request has
been processed... so the bug can be re-closed. Feel free to slap Jochen around
with a wet trout for re-opening a review ticket assigned to you.

-jef