I will review it later. I can see that the *.so is not in devel subpackage. You
must fix it. 

- MUST: rpmlint is silent - OK
- MUST: The package named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. - OK
- MUST: The spec file name in the format %{name}.spec - OK
- MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. - OK
- MUST: licensed with an open-source compatible license (GPL) - OK
- MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. - OK
- MUST: Text of license is included in %doc - OK
- MUST: The spec file is written in American English. - OK
- MUST: The spec file for the package is legible. - OK
- MUST: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. (2cde8a09508773cf2f9028912be4fbbe)
- MUST: successfully compile and build on i386/fc6 (in mock) - OK
- MUST: Not ExcludeArch - OK
- MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires (mock-build correct) - OK
- MUST: There are not any locales - OK
- MUST: ldconfig non required - OK
- MUST: the package not designed to be relocatable - OK
- MUST: A package owns all directories that it creates - OK
- MUST: There are not any duplicates in %files. - OK
- MUST: Permissions on files set properly - OK
- MUST: %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} - OK
- MUST: macros use consistently - OK
- MUST: The package contains code, or permissable content. - OK
- MUST: -doc subpackage not required - OK
- MUST: Files in %doc not affects the runtime of the application - OK
- MUST: Not any static libraries ot headers - OK
- MUST: Non *.pc files - OK
- MUST: library files end in .so (without suffix) are not in -devel - TO BE FIXED
- MUST: not any subpackages (but requires)
- MUST: not contain any .la libtool archives - OK
- MUST: Packages is not containing GUI applications - OK
- MUST: Packages does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. - OK

SHOULD Items:
- SHOULD: text of license included in package
- SHOULD: any translations
- SHOULD: Package tested in mock
- SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures. (At now I cannot check it)
- SHOULD: Package runs correctly (not any errors)
- SHOULD: scriptlets are not used
- SHOULD: Not any subpackages (without devel which must be created)
- SHOULD: Not any *.pc files

(In reply to comment #1)
> I will review it later. I can see that the *.so is not in devel subpackage. You
> must fix it. 

No. The .so files are not development libraries; they are merely LD_PRELOAD
modules that get loaded when another program is executed (if needed). If you
look at the wrapper scripts /usr/bin/kgtk-wrapper and /usr/bin/kqt-wrapper
you'll see what I mean.

I have, however, patched an error in the libkgtk module's Makefile.in that
caused it to create (useless) library version information.

New build:
Spec URL: http://www.snoekie.com/rpm/kgtk.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.snoekie.com/rpm/kgtk-0.8-2.src.rpm

Changes:
- Created patch to prevent useless libkgtk.so.* symlinks during %%build
- Added package name/version prefix to patch filenames

My mistake, I did not read files :)
With new patch the files are more clear.

   This package (kgtk) is APPROVED by me.

Thanks for the review! Will import, build and close the the bug as soon as it's
successful.

Successfully built for devel, branches requested. Closing review.