Since -devel has files in %{_libdir}/pkgconfig and %_datadir/aclocal, to avoid 
possible unowned dirs, it should:
Requires: pkgconfig
and
Requires: automake
(or Requires: %_datadir/aclocal)
respectively.

Double checked, and 
Requires: pkgconfig
is already there.

Spec URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/Gnome-1/libglade.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/Gnome-1/libglade-0.17-18.src.rpm

-18 has epoch in versioned dependency for libxml-devel

This builds in mock; rpmlint complains about the following:
   E: libglade-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
I think this is due to /usr/lib64/libgladeConf.sh.  A couple of other packages
(libxml2-devel, libxslt-devel) do this.  I guess it's some pre-pkgconfig
behavior or something.  It's pretty bogus, but I don't think it's a blocker for
a legacy library like this one.

Additionally, rpmlint on the installed package complains:

W: libglade undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libglade-gnome.so.0.4.2
glade_standard_build_children

plus 17 additional undefined-non-weak-symbol warnings.  I guess it would be nice
for these to go away, but again, this is a legacy library and these aren't
generally blockers in any case.

Full review forthcoming.

So, really it's just the undefined-non-weak-symbol thing.  I'll go ahead and
approve, but it would be good to at least check if it's possible to fix that.

* source files match upstream:
   38b2e2cfd813783fe157617813bfe3b3  libglade-0.17.tar.gz
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* 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 included in package.
* latest version is being packaged (the latest version before glade2, that is)
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
? rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
  libglade-0.17-17.fc6.x86_64.rpm
   libglade-gnome.so.0()(64bit)
   libglade.so.0()(64bit)
   libglade = 1:0.17-17.fc6
  =
   /sbin/ldconfig
   libICE.so.6()(64bit)
   libSM.so.6()(64bit)
   libX11.so.6()(64bit)
   libXext.so.6()(64bit)
   libXi.so.6()(64bit)
   libart_lgpl.so.2()(64bit)
   libaudiofile.so.0()(64bit)
   libesd.so.0()(64bit)
   libgdk-1.2.so.0()(64bit)
   libgdk_imlib.so.1()(64bit)
   libglade-gnome.so.0()(64bit)
   libglade.so.0()(64bit)
   libglib-1.2.so.0()(64bit)
   libgmodule-1.2.so.0()(64bit)
   libgnome.so.32()(64bit)
   libgnomesupport.so.0()(64bit)
   libgnomeui.so.32()(64bit)
   libgtk-1.2.so.0()(64bit)
   libxml.so.1()(64bit)

  libglade-devel-0.17-17.fc6.x86_64.rpm
   libglade-devel = 1:0.17-17.fc6
  =
   /bin/sh
   /usr/bin/env
   gnome-libs-devel >= 1.4.1.2
   libglade = 1:0.17-17.fc6
   libglade-gnome.so.0()(64bit)
   libglade.so.0()(64bit)
   libxml-devel >= 1.8.16
   pkgconfig

* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* shared libraries present; ldconfig is called as necessary.  Unversioned .so
files are in the -devel subpackage.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* scriptlets are OK (ldconfig)
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* headers in -devel subpackage.
* pkgconfig file in -devel subpackage; pkgconfig is a dependency.
* no libtool .la droppings.

APPROVED

(In reply to comment #4)
> This builds in mock; rpmlint complains about the following:
>    E: libglade-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
> I think this is due to /usr/lib64/libgladeConf.sh.  A couple of other packages
> (libxml2-devel, libxslt-devel) do this.  I guess it's some pre-pkgconfig
> behavior or something.  It's pretty bogus, but I don't think it's a blocker for
> a legacy library like this one.

OK, left that one.

> Additionally, rpmlint on the installed package complains:
> 
> W: libglade undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libglade-gnome.so.0.4.2
> glade_standard_build_children
> 
> plus 17 additional undefined-non-weak-symbol warnings.  I guess it would be nice
> for these to go away, but again, this is a legacy library and these aren't
> generally blockers in any case.

I believe I've fixed this in -19, along with the /usr/lib64 rpaths on the x86_64
build.

Given that you approved the package already, I'll import it and build it. Any
new issues you have, I'll fix in cvs.

Thanks for the review.

Spec URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/Gnome-1/libglade.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/Gnome-1/libglade-0.17-19.src.rpm

Oddly enough I didn't see any rpaths in my x86_64 build.  But the new package
looks fine and it seems that fixing the undefined-non-weak-symbol stuff was
easy.  Thanks.

 18744 (libglade): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded.
     Build logs may be found at
http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-development-extras/18744-libglade-0.17-19.fc6/

owners.list updated.

Thanks again for the review.