This fails to build in mock:

+ make
gcc -Wall -pedantic -fPIC -shared  -o pam_script.so pam_script.c
pam_script.c:23:34: error: security/_pam_macros.h: No such file or directory
pam_script.c:24:34: error: security/pam_modules.h: No such file or directory
pam_script.c:48: error: expected ')' before '*' token
pam_script.c:83: error: expected ')' before '*' token
pam_script.c:240: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__' before
'int'
pam_script.c:249: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__' before
'int'
pam_script.c:259: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__' before
'int'
pam_script.c:296: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__' before
'int'
make: *** [pam_script.so] Errror 1

Adding BuildRequires: pam-devel fixes this up; rpmlint is happy with the
resulting package.  I'll assume the BR: is there for the purposes of this review.

The compiler isn't called with the appropriate flags.  You need to pass in
${optflags} somehow.  This also causes the -debuginfo package to be broken.

* package meets naming and packaging guidelines (pam modules use an underscore).
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.  License text not included upstream. 
* source files match upstream:
   9f1031154718b79d6ee79c9c5231b1d4  pam-script-0.1.7.tar.gz
* latest version is being packaged.
X BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64) (after adding BR: pam-devel)
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   pam_script.so()(64bit)
   pam_script = 0.1.7-1.fc6
  =
   (empty)
* shared libraries are present, internal to pam.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates (doesn't own /lib/security, but I think pam is
a requirement for any running system)
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* %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.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.

thanks for the review..

updated package ans spec

Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~michael/pam_script.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~michael/pam_script-0.1.7-1.src.rpm

Sorry.. incorrect URLs, trying again. 

Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~michael/pam_script.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~michael/pam_script-0.1.7-2.src.rpm

Looks good; the package builds fine, the compiler is called with the proper
flags and the debuginfo package includes the files it's supposed to.

APPROVED

Cheers for the review, imported into CVS and building on devel.