MUSTFIX:
Missing SMP flags: if there is a known problem, a comment should be added in the
spec file (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake)
You should not use the Packager tag (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#tags)
Does not build in mock (missing qmake), you should add a Buildrequire for qt-devel.

Minor:
BuildRoot does not follow the guidelines (should be
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) (wiki:
PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot)

Thanks for the review.  New version addressing these is at:

Spec URL: ftp://ftp.tummy.com/pub/tummy/RPMS/SRPMS/moto4lin.spec
SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.tummy.com/pub/tummy/RPMS/SRPMS/moto4lin-0.3-2.src.rpm

No need to mention in the Changelog who suggested what, especially when dealing
with errors :)

I'll review that. Note that I cannot actually test the program because I do not
have a compatible phone.

GOOD
- package meets naming guidelines
- license ( GPL ) OK, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream, sha1sum 
12dff499f7a29a36e7b7a67d3260d470280485dc  moto4lin-0.3.tar.bz
- package compiles on FC6/x86_64
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for separated -doc
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no .la, static, .pc files

MUSTFIX
- the source rpm should retain the date of the upstream source
- the binary rpm should include as %doc the license file (it is included in the
tar.bz2 as GPL-2)
- %prep does not need to include cleaning the buildroot
- the program is a GUI, so acording to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop a moto4lin.desktop
file should be included in the rpm. Otherwise a comment with your explanation of
not providing one should be included in the spec file

Suggestion
- It is unusual for a spec to include the comments about the macros. If you
definitely need them, feel free to let them in, but otherwise they should be
deleted.

NEEDINFO
- as far as I can tell, the program does start in FC6. Without a compatible
phone I cannot say if it actually works. The comment on the main page of the
moto4lin wiki states that the 0.3 version does not work on x86_64 and recommends
either patching it or using the more recent svn version. Could you please
elaborate on this aspect?

"- the source rpm should retain the date of the upstream source" ==> the date of
upstream tar.bz2 should be preserved

All these issues are resolved.  The comments were in there from another source,
I don't care about them so I removed them.

The program runs on my FC6 system, but I haven't copied anything on or off my
phone.  Scott, who's package this is based off, says he used it to copy photos
off his phone.

The package looks almost fine now, except for
- in Fedora there is no lib64usb-devel. Independent of architecture the package
is called libusb-devel.
- the Categories section in the .desktop does not look right. I for one would
not look for this app under "Graphics" but under "Communications" or something
similar. Maybe that, for inspiration sake, you could take a pick at some other
similar application ?
- patches are to be included as %Patch, not as %Source. I suggest

-Source3:        %{name}-0.3-crossplatform.patch
+Patch:          %{name}-0.3-crossplatform.patch
-patch -p1 -s <%{SOURCE3}
+%Patch -p1 -b crossplatform

Please address the above and I will be glad to do a final review.

Done.

SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.tummy.com/pub/tummy/RPMS/SRPMS/moto4lin-0.3-4.src.rpm
Spec URL: ftp://ftp.tummy.com/pub/tummy/RPMS/SRPMS/moto4lin.spec

Just checked the new version. These seem to be the problems left:
- Since release 3, you do not use a consistent convention for the Buildroot.
Please select either $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot} and use it everywhere
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#UsingBuildRootOptFlags)
- Packaging/Guidelines/Compiler flags is not respected. The build process is
based on qmake.conf default settings, not on $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
- the .desktop file does not use a standard category. Please try to find an
appropriate one from http://standards.freedesktop.org/menu-spec/latest/apa.html
- I am not sure that Applications/File is the proper RPM Group (I feel like
Applications/Communications being more appropriate since you communicate with
the mobile..) but I will not object if you retain it. Maybe someone more
experienced could give us a hint here ?

I've uploaded new spec and SRPM files, and have researched qmake and determined
that the optimizer flags isn't something I can fix.

SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.tummy.com/pub/tummy/RPMS/SRPMS/moto4lin-0.3-5.src.rpm
Spec URL: ftp://ftp.tummy.com/pub/tummy/RPMS/SRPMS/moto4lin.spec
RPM URL: ftp://ftp.tummy.com/pub/tummy/RPMS/FC6/moto4lin-0.3-5.i386.rpm

I have reviewed this release (moto4lin-0.3-5) and all problems reported before
seem fixed, except for one: the compile step does not take into account
$RPM_OPT_FLAGS: qmake ignores the parameters included in the the spec file and
uses only those included in the project bundled in the source, which in turn
uses the default values from /usr/lib/qt-3.3/mkspecs/linux-g++/qmake.conf.
Unfortunately this contradicts the packaging guidelines (wiki: Compiler flags).
Neither the reporter not I have enough experience to solve this issues,
therefore I kindly request for counseling from people more experienced.

I think giving up this package is too early. Back to assigned.
I will see if I can help for this.

make CXX="g++ $RPM_OPT_FLAGS" %{_smp_mflags} all
seems okay.

Thank you, Mamoru, that was it.

Jafo-redhat: please modify the spec to include Mamoru's suggestion and I will
approve the package.

Thanks Mamoru, I've built new packages with your build flags.

SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.tummy.com/pub/tummy/RPMS/SRPMS/moto4lin-0.3-6.src.rpm
Spec URL: ftp://ftp.tummy.com/pub/tummy/RPMS/SRPMS/moto4lin.spec

All problems seem fixed. Package APPROVED.

I would like to make a little suggestion : I have tested the RPM on my mobile
phone (a Motorola Razr V3) and with the version 0.3 of moto4lin, it doesn't work.
But with the SVN version --- moreover it is confirmed by the Moto4lin
developpers -- the SVN version supports more phones models, like mine.

What is the status of this bug?

Sorry, forgot to get it closed.