I'm not a Python expert, but I promised on IRC that I'd take a look, so....

The only issue I see is the unversioned .so file.  If you have versioned
libraries, the unversioned link needs to live in the -devel package.

Review:
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible; license text is included in the package.
* source files match upstream:
   2ec8a95a5d0880e99ad4695ec113b799  pypoker-eval-131.0.tar.gz
   2ec8a95a5d0880e99ad4695ec113b799  pypoker-eval-131.0.tar.gz-srpm
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane.
X shared libraries are present.  They are internal to python so there's no need
to run ldconfig, but the inversioned .so file needs to be moved to the devel
package.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* .pyo files are ghosted properly.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
O %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* pkgconfig file is in the -devel package.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.

Please ignore the fact that I completely missed the %check section.  The test
suite is not verbose about its passage, but it does pass just fine.

I asked upstream about the library version number, and they mention that it is
the first version of the ABI.  When the ABI changes, the version number will be
bumped, so I think a version number of 0.0.0 is okay.

I had no issues with the version number of the library.  It is the unversioned
.so file that must move to the -devel package.

yea duh, I'm stupid, I misread the report.  Okay, I've fixed up the spec file
accordingly, but rpmlint now gives this warning:

W: pypoker-eval-devel dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/lib64/python2.4/site-packages/pypokereval.so pypokereval.so.0.0.0

New files can be found at:
Spec URL: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/pypoker-eval.spec
SRPM URL: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/pypoker-eval-131.0-3.src.rpm

** NOTE **  You may have to download the srpm from
http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/

rpmlint seems to be smart enough to not warn about dangling symlinks for .so
files in %{_libdir}, but within Python's directory I guess it doesn't know what
to do.

Anyway, the new package builds fine and ignoring the rpmlint false positive
everything is clean.

APPROVED