To add a little more detail:
- This is my first package request; I gather from the documentation[1] that I will need a sponsor. I've introduced myself of the devel mailing list here[2], but I'm not sure how best to go about getting a sponsor.
- This package was previously orphaned. I've opened a request to take over maintenance in releng on pagure here [3]
- I'm not the upstream maintainer. Upstream is here[4], and I have reached out to the maintainer earlier today (but not yet heard anything back)

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Create_Your_Review_Request
[2] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/CBGVZJ2EFBI24G6JONHUIDURUYLB4M4A/
[3] https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9067
[4] https://github.com/Hummer12007/brightnessctl

I have to apologize; I linked a mutable version of the SPEC file above, and the version at the time of linking also produced a broken 
version of brightnessctl when the resulting RPMs are installed.

The reason is that my locally tested version of brightnessctl was more up-to-date than the last released upstream version - so 
the systemd integrations mentioned above were not yet present.

Here are new versions on copr that won't change:
SPEC file: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/jelford/brightnessctl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01121698-brightnessctl/brightnessctl.spec
SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/jelford/brightnessctl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01121698-brightnessctl/brightnessctl-0.4-5.fc32.src.rpm
And for convenience, here's the overall copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jelford/brightnessctl/build/1121698/

I've installed from copr and all seems to be in order now.

 - Man pages must not be marked as %doc:

%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1.*

 - Use a better name for your archive:

Source0:        %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz


 - DESTDIR=%{buildroot} is already included in %make_install:

%make_install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} → %make_install

 - Install the readme with %doc:

%doc README.md

 - Changelog entry is not okay:

brightnessctl.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.4.0-5 ['0.4-5.fc32', '0.4-5']

 - Use Fedora default build flags:

%build
%set_build_flags
%make_build

 - Sunce the binary is suid you must set hardening flags:

%global _hardened_build 1

See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_pie




Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======t.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_file_permissions
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
  Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/brightnessctl
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
- Package uses hardened build flags if required to.
  Note: suid files: brightnessctl and not %global _hardened_build
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_compiler_flags


===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: 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". 5 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/brightnessctl/review-
     brightnessctl/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: 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
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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 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]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[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]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: brightnessctl-0.4-5.fc32.x86_64.rpm
          brightnessctl-debuginfo-0.4-5.fc32.x86_64.rpm
          brightnessctl-debugsource-0.4-5.fc32.x86_64.rpm
          brightnessctl-0.4-5.fc32.src.rpm
brightnessctl.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.4.0-5 ['0.4-5.fc32', '0.4-5']
brightnessctl.x86_64: E: no-binary
brightnessctl.x86_64: E: setuid-binary /usr/bin/brightnessctl root 4711
brightnessctl.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/brightnessctl 4711
brightnessctl.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/brightnessctl 4711
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings.

Thanks for looking at this. Sorry to take such a long time coming back.
Hopefully things are in a better state now - latest copr output here,
which has the .spec file, along with the source and x84_64 RPMs:

https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/jelford/brightnessctl/fedora-31-x86_64/01185238-brightnessctl/

Builds for rawhide and aarch64 can be found here:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jelford/brightnessctl/build/1185238/

One thing I wasn't sure about:

> Changelog entry is not okay:

I think this should be okay now, but I'm a little uncertain how these should be.
I've bumped the "Release" version each time I've tweaked the .spec file - so that
anyone consuming my copr repo would see a new version - but of course if this package
is accepted, then from the "fedora" point of view this would be the "first" release 
(for upstream version 0.4). Would you be able to give me some guidance on this please?

Hopefully the rest of the points are now addressed:

> Man pages must not be marked as %doc:

Fixed

> Use a better name for your archive:

Updated

> DESTDIR=%{buildroot} is already included in %make_install

Updated

> Install the readme with %doc:

Done


> Use Fedora default build flags:

Updated

> Sunce the binary is suid you must set hardening flags:

Thanks, updated. I hope this will go away shortly since the author has plans to 
move to a non-setuid mode (in version 0.5), but for now have just corrected.

Package is approved, you still need to find a sponsor: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group

Sorry, totally missed that when I filed the bug to un-retire the package (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795018). I used the patches to use systemd-logind instead of the suid binary because I think that is a much better way. I am very happy to have james.p.elford as co-maintainer.

Closing this off since it's effectively a duplicate off https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795018. 

I will coordinate separately with Christian on tweaks to the newly-included package, but am still interested in packaging sponsorship (in contact with Robert-Andrá via email).

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1795018 ***