A review:

See Below - Rpmlint output.
OK - Package name.
OK - Spec file name matches.
OK - Package guidelines.
OK - Licsense. (BSD)
OK - License field matches in spec.
OK - License included in files
OK - Spec in american english
OK - Spec legible
See below- Md5sum of source from upstream
OK - Compiles and builds on one arch at least.
See below - All required buildrequires included?
OK - Ldconfig in post/postun if including libs.
OK - Owns all directories it creates.
OK - No duplicate files in %files listing.
OK - Permissions on files correct.
OK - Clean section correct.
OK - Macros consistant.
OK - Code not content.
OK - Header files/libs in a devel package.
OK - .so files in devel package.
OK - Devel package requires base package.
OK - No .la files.
OK - .desktop file if a GUI app
OK - Doesn't own any files/dirs that are already owned by others.

Items needing attention:

1. md5sum's of the upstream source don't seem to match:

4bb9b0c1642d36265c807a04da3d6f60  gpsd-2.32.tar.gz
8212ac4b10deb3f69d84b80a8a0d3cfd  gpsd-2.32.tar.gz.1

2. Are you only planning for this to be in devel?
You might consider using a dist tag...
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DistTag
For fc4 you would also have to change the X BuildRequires.

3. Consider supressing /usr/lib/libgps.a file with
--disable-static or removing the .a file before packaging.

4. The 'E: gpsd-clients only-non-binary-in-usr-lib' rpmlint
can probibly be ignored. It's good to ship app-defaults files
so people can customize as they like. perhaps file an RFE
against rpmlint to allow this case?

5. I see in the build logs:
xmlto man gps.xml
make[1]: xmlto: Command not found
make[1]: [gps.1] Error 127 (ignored)

Perhaps a 'BuildRequires: xmlto' is needed?

6. You use a python call to determine the python site dir,
should you also have a 'BuildRequires: python'? It's not in the
exceptions list of packages not to list. (Althought it's in
the base build group, so it works)

7. There is also a 'W: gpsd non-conffile-in-etc /etc/hotplug/usb/gpsd.usermap'
from rpmlint. I think thats safe to ignore as well.

(In reply to comment #1)
> Items needing attention:
> 
> 1. md5sum's of the upstream source don't seem to match:
> 
> 4bb9b0c1642d36265c807a04da3d6f60  gpsd-2.32.tar.gz
> 8212ac4b10deb3f69d84b80a8a0d3cfd  gpsd-2.32.tar.gz.1

This is weird.  I get that they do:

4bb9b0c1642d36265c807a04da3d6f60  gpsd-2.32.tar.gz
4bb9b0c1642d36265c807a04da3d6f60  gpsd-2.32.tar.gz.1

Ohhh, maybe I accidentally used the source from the upstream srpm the first time
around (and perhaps that source tarball doesn't match).  Weird.  

> 2. Are you only planning for this to be in devel?
> You might consider using a dist tag...
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DistTag

I know, and included the dist tag shortly after I submitted this bug report (but
didn't yet post the new srpm as it was the only change).  I use it in the new
srpm as indicated below.

> For fc4 you would also have to change the X BuildRequires.

Right.  Will do if I build for fc4 (as right now I'm not even sure what is
needed).  

> 3. Consider supressing /usr/lib/libgps.a file with
> --disable-static or removing the .a file before packaging.

Done.  

> 4. The 'E: gpsd-clients only-non-binary-in-usr-lib' rpmlint
> can probibly be ignored. It's good to ship app-defaults files
> so people can customize as they like. perhaps file an RFE
> against rpmlint to allow this case?

Ok, ignoring error.

> 5. I see in the build logs:
> xmlto man gps.xml
> make[1]: xmlto: Command not found
> make[1]: [gps.1] Error 127 (ignored)
> 
> Perhaps a 'BuildRequires: xmlto' is needed?

Oops.  My bad.  Fixed.

> 6. You use a python call to determine the python site dir,
> should you also have a 'BuildRequires: python'? It's not in the
> exceptions list of packages not to list. (Althought it's in
> the base build group, so it works)

Also fixed.  

> 7. There is also a 'W: gpsd non-conffile-in-etc /etc/hotplug/usb/gpsd.usermap'
> from rpmlint. I think thats safe to ignore as well.

Also ignoring.  

New spec and srpm:
http://matt.truch.net/fedora/gpsd.spec
http://matt.truch.net/fedora/gpsd-2.32-1.src.rpm

>This is weird.  I get that they do:
>
>4bb9b0c1642d36265c807a04da3d6f60  gpsd-2.32.tar.gz
>4bb9b0c1642d36265c807a04da3d6f60  gpsd-2.32.tar.gz.1
>
>Ohhh, maybe I accidentally used the source from the upstream srpm the firsttime
>around (and perhaps that source tarball doesn't match).  Weird.  

Ok, something must have been odd with my initial download. 
I now get that same md5sum. Downloaded it several places and it all matched. 
Not sure if there was a hiccup on berlios, somewhere in between or what, but it 
looks ok now. 

>> For fc4 you would also have to change the X BuildRequires.
>
>Right.  Will do if I build for fc4 (as right now I'm not even sure what is
>needed).  

ok. Probibly will need xorg-x11-devel there. 

>New spec and srpm:
>http://matt.truch.net/fedora/gpsd.spec
>http://matt.truch.net/fedora/gpsd-2.32-1.src.rpm

You mean http://matt.truch.net/fedora/gpsd-2.32-3.src.rpm, right? 
In any case that seems to be the right one. ;) 

I can't seem to get this to build under mock, but it looks like a dbus-devel
and/or problem with my test machine. It builds fine otherwise. 

All the blockers are fixed, so this package is APPROVED. 

FYI, the mock build problems I was seeing were due to a missing 
BuildRequires: dbus-glib
which is needed for the link in dbus-devel to be working and pointing to the
right library. 

Built and should be available shortly.

Thanks again for the review.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: gpsd
New Branches: epel7
Owners: fcami

Note:  Miroslav Lichvar stated by email I could maintain the EPEL7 branch.

Git done (by process-git-requests).