OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (MIT)
OK - License field in spec matches
See below - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
ec4677a59dd2643d50da0914b3a1df88  TwistedRunner-0.2.0.tar.bz2
ec4677a59dd2643d50da0914b3a1df88  TwistedRunner-0.2.0.tar.bz2.1
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.

OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - No rpmlint output.
See below - final provides and requires are sane:

SHOULD Items:

OK - Should build in mock.
x386/x86_64 - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version

Issues:

1. Ditto the %{python} macro comment from the other python-twisted reviews. ;)

2. Should include LICENSE and NEWS as %doc files.

3. I see that this package is providing:
portmap.so  (on i386)
and
portmap.so()(64bit) (on x86_64)
Should that be the case? Or should that be filtered out?
Thats a pretty generic .so name and it's not in a standard dir
where something could link to it.

portmap.so is a python module, afaict everything works correctly.  It's not
meant to be linked against.

http://thomas.apestaart.org/download/pkg/fedora-6-i386-extras/python-twisted-runner-0.2.0-4.fc6/

In reply to comment #2: 

Yeah, I know it's not meant to be linked against, but the rpm shows it as a
provides. So, if some package somewhere requires 'portmap.so' it will get this
package installed. Nothing currently does that I can see, but it just looks
messy to provide something that isn't really usable by other packages. There's
nothing in the guidelines blocking this, I just thought I would bring it to your
attention. 

The package in comment #3 looks good. I don't see any further blockers, so 
this package is APPROVED. 

Don't forget to close this review request with NEXTRELEASE once it's been
imported and built. 

Ah, I see what you mean.

Well, it's probably not a problem, given that e.g.

[root@otto ~]# rpm -q --provides pygtk2
_gtk.so
atk.so
gobject.so
pango.so
pangocairo.so
pygtk2 = 2.8.6-0.fc5.1

this looks like something that is already happening.