- The description should be wrapped to stay below 80 characters per line:

%description
clipnotify is a simple program that, using the XFIXES extension to X11, waits
until a new selection is available and then exits.

 - make %{?_smp_mflags} -> %make_build

 - This is not ok:

%global debug_package %{nil}

You should find out why a debug package is not generated. Here you should set %set_build_flags to use Fedora default build flags:

%build
%set_build_flags
%make_build

 - The changelog entry must contain your name, email and version-release number:

%changelog
* Thu May 06 2021 kvlad <v.a.kim1988> - 1.0.2-1
- First clipnotify package

 - Use a more explicit name for your archive:

Source0:        https://github.com/cdown/%{name}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz




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

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



===== 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: "*No copyright* the Unlicense", "Unknown or generated". 3 files
     have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/clipnotify/review-
     clipnotify/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %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.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[!]: 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]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[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]: 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: clipnotify-1.0.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          clipnotify-debuginfo-1.0.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          clipnotify-debugsource-1.0.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          clipnotify-1.0.2-1.fc35.src.rpm
clipnotify.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libXfixes
clipnotify.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C clipnotify is a simple program that, using the XFIXES extension to X11, waits until a new selection is available and then exits.
clipnotify.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog vlad ['1.0.2-1.fc35', '1.0.2-1']
clipnotify.x86_64: W: no-documentation
clipnotify.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary clipnotify
clipnotify.src: E: description-line-too-long C clipnotify is a simple program that, using the XFIXES extension to X11, waits until a new selection is available and then exits.
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings.

(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #1)
>  - The description should be wrapped to stay below 80 characters per line:
> 
> %description
> clipnotify is a simple program that, using the XFIXES extension to X11, waits
> until a new selection is available and then exits.
> 
>  - make %{?_smp_mflags} -> %make_build
> 
>  - This is not ok:
> 
> %global debug_package %{nil}
> 
> You should find out why a debug package is not generated. Here you should
> set %set_build_flags to use Fedora default build flags:
> 
> %build
> %set_build_flags
> %make_build
> 
>  - The changelog entry must contain your name, email and version-release
> number:
> 
> %changelog
> * Thu May 06 2021 kvlad <v.a.kim1988> - 1.0.2-1
> - First clipnotify package
> 
>  - Use a more explicit name for your archive:
> 
> Source0:       
> https://github.com/cdown/%{name}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Package Review
> ==============
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
> 
> 
> 
> ===== 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: "*No copyright* the Unlicense", "Unknown or generated". 3 files
>      have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
>      /home/bob/packaging/review/clipnotify/review-
>      clipnotify/licensecheck.txt
> [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> [x]: %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.
> [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
> [!]: 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]: Permissions on files are set properly.
> [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
>      work.
> [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
> [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
> [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]: 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: clipnotify-1.0.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
>           clipnotify-debuginfo-1.0.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
>           clipnotify-debugsource-1.0.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
>           clipnotify-1.0.2-1.fc35.src.rpm
> clipnotify.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libXfixes
> clipnotify.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C clipnotify is a simple
> program that, using the XFIXES extension to X11, waits until a new selection
> is available and then exits.
> clipnotify.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog vlad ['1.0.2-1.fc35',
> '1.0.2-1']
> clipnotify.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> clipnotify.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary clipnotify
> clipnotify.src: E: description-line-too-long C clipnotify is a simple
> program that, using the XFIXES extension to X11, waits until a new selection
> is available and then exits.
> 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings.

Hi! Thank you! Almost done, but the error has occured with:
%build
#%set_build_flags
%make_build


make -O -j4 hangs, while building the package.
make -O -j1 works fine, when run it manual. What is the correct way to do it in spec-file?

Use make -O -j1 but add a comment explaining parallel build aren't working.

I can't access https://startserv.sh/rpmbuild/SPECS/clipnotify.spec anymore. Pleqse send the updqted spec file somewhere I can review it.

No need to needinfo the entire package-review list here. :) clearing...

(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #3)
> Use make -O -j1 but add a comment explaining parallel build aren't working.
> 
> I can't access https://startserv.sh/rpmbuild/SPECS/clipnotify.spec anymore.
> Pleqse send the updqted spec file somewhere I can review it.

Hi! All done.
No need to use make -O -j1, it's just start working after few system  updates.
New spec file is available.
Thank you!

 - The release nu;ber is missing in the changelog entry:

* Thu Jun 17 2021 kvlad <v.a.kim1988> - 1.0.2-1

Package is approved. Please fix the aforementioned issue before import,

You still need to find a sponsor: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group