Now that xcb-proto is done, I can take a look at this.

It builds fine and rpmlint only says
  W: libxcb-devel no-documentation
which is not an issue.

Actually I'm not sure about the point of the -doc package; it has only three
files which are already in the main package.

Review:
* source files match upstream:
   19d6b2ac380fd3e613a3730e791f197f186f940bffec97f8a4f9443bb727d11d  
   libxcb-1.0.tar.bz2
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
  libxcb-1.0-1.fc8.x86_64.rpm
   libxcb-composite.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-damage.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-dpms.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-glx.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-randr.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-record.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-render.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-res.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-screensaver.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-shape.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-shm.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-sync.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-xevie.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-xf86dri.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-xfixes.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-xinerama.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-xlib.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-xprint.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-xtest.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-xv.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-xvmc.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb.so.1()(64bit)
   libxcb = 1.0-1.fc8
  =
   /sbin/ldconfig
   libXau.so.6()(64bit)
   libXdmcp.so.6()(64bit)
   libxcb-composite.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-damage.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-dpms.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-glx.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-randr.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-record.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-render.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-res.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-screensaver.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-shape.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-shm.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-sync.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-xevie.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-xf86dri.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-xfixes.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-xinerama.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-xlib.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-xprint.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-xtest.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-xv.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-xvmc.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb.so.1()(64bit)

  libxcb-devel-1.0-1.fc8.x86_64.rpm
   libxcb-devel = 1.0-1.fc8
  =
   libxcb = 1.0-1.fc8
   libxcb-composite.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-damage.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-dpms.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-glx.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-randr.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-record.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-render.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-res.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-screensaver.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-shape.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-shm.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-sync.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-xevie.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-xf86dri.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-xfixes.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-xinerama.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-xlib.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-xprint.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-xtest.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-xv.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb-xvmc.so.0()(64bit)
   libxcb.so.1()(64bit)
   pkgconfig

  libxcb-doc-1.0-1.fc8.x86_64.rpm
   libxcb-doc = 1.0-1.fc8
  =

* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* no shared present; ldconfig called as necessary.  Unversioned .so files are in 
   the -debug package.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
X documentation files are duplicated in -doc package.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* scriptlets are OK (ldconfig).
* code, not content.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* headers are in the -devel package.
* pkgconfig files are in the -devel package; pkgconfig dependency is there.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

"No test suite upstream" isn't entirely accurate, but it depends on a newer
version of check than we have in rawhide atm.

And when I built it, %doc certainly included a whole mess of stuff.  I suspect
that was a non-clean build with docbook in the runtime path; I'll poke a bit.

I guess I didn't look very hard for the test suite.

I did another build to get the build log; in it I found this:

checking for doxygen... no
WARNING:
The doxygen program was not found in your execute
You may have doxygen installed somewhere not covered by your path.

If this is the case make sure you have the packages installed, AND
that the doxygen program is in your execute path (see your
shell's manual page on setting the $PATH environment variable), OR
alternatively, specify the program to use with --with-doxygen.
configure: WARNING: Warning: no doxygen detected. Documentation will not be built
checking whether documentation is built... no

which should explain the documentation issue.

Alright, new spec and srpm in the same place as before.  Added doxygen and
graphviz to the buildreqs.

Also, had to move --docdir for the package to not be %{name}-%{version}, since
that's where %doc will install to, and where %doc will delete before installing.
 So you now get %{_docdir}/libxcb and %{_docdir}/libxcb-1.0.  I guess that's okay?

Eh.  Changed again to just not use %doc.  I think this should be final.

Yes, that looks good to me.

APPROVED

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: libxcb
Short Description: C binding to the X11 protocll
Owners: ajackson
Branches: 
InitialCC: 

I assume that "protocll" was supposed to be "protocol". :) 
cvs done. 

Imported and built.  Thanks all!

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: libxcb
New Branches: F-7

CVS done.