I am not 100% sure if the current state with those subpackages is really appropriate especially because all resulting rpms do have a different name starting with lib%{name}-{devel,designer} and the debug package is called qcodeedit-debug. Not really a great solution I think.

Don't know what's more appropriate. Would be glad if someone with more experience could help me on this issue.

Just a couple of quick comments:

- adapt Source0 according to 
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Sourceforge.net

- Drop BR: gcc-c++. It's present by default
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exceptions_2

- There's no need to prefix the packages with "lib". Just put the library into
  the base package and the devel files into %{name}-devel

- Is it necessary to call qmake-qt4 %{name}.pro twice in %build?

- Install the shared library files libqcodeedit.so* directly into %{_libdir}

- The designer subpackage should require qt-devel for proper directory
  ownership. Maybe it would also make sense to move the plugin to the devel
  package instead of package it separately.

- The devel package should also require qt-devel which provides directory 
  %{_libdir}/qt4/mkspecs/features/

- The devel package must require the base package this way
  Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
  The %{?_isa} part has been added to the guidelines lately:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package

- You can drop Requires: pkgconfig. It's added automatically if necessary
  (still required for EPEL < 6, though).

- Add GPL.txt to the base package.

- The tarball contains a Doxyfile. Maybe it's a good idea to build the doxygen
  (html) documentation and add it to the devel package (or a separate doc
  package).

Alright thanks for the suggestions. I fixed all issues you found except I didn't remove the -designer subpackage, since I don't think the -devel package is more appropriate.

SPEC-URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/qcodeedit.spec
SRPM-URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/qcodeedit-2.2.3-2.fc15.src.rpm

rpmlint qcodeedit.spec 
qcodeedit.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/qcodeedit/2.2.3/qcodeedit-2.2.3.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

I had a deeper look at the package and it looks almost fine. There are yet a few small things to be fixed:

- The URL given in Source0 is invalid. Change it to
  http://downloads.sourceforge.net/edyuk/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

- Fix the file permissions that rpmlint complains about (see below)
  * add chmod 644 README.txt to %prep
  * add chmod 755 %{buildroot}%{_libdir} to %install

- Add qt-devel to the devel package (see comment #2).

- Drop Requires: pkgconfig as there's no .pc file in -devel.

- Replace $RPM_BUILD_ROOT with %{buildroot} to use macros consistently.

- If you don't plan to build the package for EPEL < 6 too, you can drop 
  rm -rf %{buildroot} from install. Otherwise, add a BuildRoot field and a
  %clean section. These are still required for EPEL 4 and 5.
  
- You can drop option -p from "cp" as option -a already includes -p 
  implicitly.

- rpmlint doesn't like non-devel packages requiring a devel package. If the
  designer subpackage is considered a devel package as well, this is probably 
  OK.
  

$ rpmlint *.rpm
qcodeedit.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/qcodeedit/2.2.3/qcodeedit-2.2.3.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found
qcodeedit.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/libqcodeedit.so.1.0.0 0775L
qcodeedit.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/qcodeedit-2.2.3/README.txt
qcodeedit-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/qcodeedit-2.2.3/lib/.build
qcodeedit-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/qcodeedit-2.2.3/lib/.build
qcodeedit-designer.x86_64: E: devel-dependency qt-devel
qcodeedit-designer.x86_64: W: no-documentation
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings.

The hidden files warnings can be ignored.

---------------------------------
key:

[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
---------------------------------

[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
    - GPLv3 according to source headers

[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
    $ md5sum qcodeedit-2.2.3.tar.gz*
    e2453d8e97c2592a870bbddd51876ad0  qcodeedit-2.2.3.tar.gz
    e2453d8e97c2592a870bbddd51876ad0  qcodeedit-2.2.3.tar.gz.1

[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[+] MUST: When compiling C, C++, or Fortran files, %{optflags} must be applied.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[+] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. 
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[X] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
    - see rpmlint output
 
[X] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
    - replace $RPM_BUILD_ROOT with %{buildroot}

[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[+] MUST: If a package contains .so.* files, then .so files (without suffix) must go in a -devel package.
[+] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

EPEL <= 5 only:
[X] MUST: The spec file must contain a valid BuildRoot field.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}.
[X] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}.
[X] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
    - no .pc file present => drop Requires: pkgconfig

[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[+] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[+] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency.
[+] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg.
[.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself.
[.] SHOULD: Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.

Thanks for your pretty fast and comprehensive review. I think I fixed all issues now and removed the -designer subpackage as well.

SPEC-URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/qcodeedit.spec
SRPM-URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/qcodeedit-2.2.3-3.fc15.src.rpm

Scratch Build in Koji:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3227198

rpmlint output:
rpmlint qcodeedit.spec 
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

rpmlint ../RPMS/x86_64/qcodeedit-2.2.3-3.fc15.x86_64.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

rpmlint ../RPMS/x86_64/qcodeedit-devel-2.2.3-3.fc15.x86_64.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

rpmlint ../RPMS/x86_64/qcodeedit-debuginfo-2.2.3-3.fc15.x86_64.rpm 
qcodeedit-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/qcodeedit-2.2.3/lib/.build
qcodeedit-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/qcodeedit-2.2.3/lib/.build
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

The designer plugin ought to go in the main pkg, not -devel, as it can be loaded at runtime.

Fixed. Should be fine now, or?

SPEC-URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/qcodeedit.spec
SRPM-URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/qcodeedit-2.2.3-4.fc15.src.rpm

I just checked the dependencies again, and noticed that you can drop Require: qt-devel from the base package. Package qt-x11 provides the plugin directory and libQtDesigner.so.4. Since the base package depends on libQtDesigner.so.4, there's no need for qt-devel here.

I also forgot to add the filenames in comment #4. The chmod statement in %install should look like this:
chmod 755 %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.*

SPEC-URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/qcodeedit.spec
SRPM-URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/qcodeedit-2.2.3-5.fc15.src.rpm

Alright fixed this!

Not quite, sorry. You should drop Requires: qt-devel from the base package but keep it for -devel.

And (with my qt maintainer hat on), deps of the form:
Requires: qt4-devel
or
Requires: pkgconfig(QtGui)

are preferable to
Requires: qt-devel

SPEC-URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/qcodeedit.spec
SRPM-URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/qcodeedit-2.2.3-6.fc15.src.rpm

Ok, like this? Quite confusing ;-)

Yes. The package looks good now. :)

----------------
Package APPROVED
----------------

I still see 1 small problem

$RPM_OPT_FLAGS aren't being used when building libqcodeedit due to it building
in debug mode by default.

I'd suggest removing the line
CONFIG += debug
from at least lib/lib.pro and perhaps from qcodeedit.pro too (the latter seems
to set _DEBUG_BUILD_ or _RELEASE_BUILD_ defines, but neither of these seem to
be used in code anywhere that I can tell).

Ok removed these two lines? Is it ok like this?

SPEC-URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/qcodeedit.spec
SRPM-URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/qcodeedit-2.2.3-7.fc15.src.rpm

Yes, now the %optflags are present. Sorry for having overlooked this one.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: qcodeedit
Short Description: Qt-Framework for code editing
Owners: hannes
Branches: f14 f15
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Build in rawhide:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=255576