rebased to 2.9.1, please review: 

Spec URL: https://pkilambi.fedorapeople.org/python-influxdb/python-influxdb.spec
SRPM URL: https://pkilambi.fedorapeople.org/python-influxdb/python-influxdb-2.9.1-1.fc22.src.rpm

Hello Pradeep,

Thanks for submitting for package review.

Below is my inline comments.

[1.] include license file as
Source1: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/influxdb/influxdb-python/master/LICENSE
under %build section
copy the license file as cp Source1 .
and then include it in %files section as 
%license LICENSE

[2.]under %prep section delete *-requirements.txt using
rm -f {test-,dev-,}requirements.tx

[3.] under %build and %install section, replace %{__python} to %{__python2}

[4.] Since the tarfile contains the documentation of influxdb
please build the documentation under %build section
using sphinx-build -b html docs/source docs/build
 and create a doc subpackage.

[5.] Since this package is python3 supported, Please create python2 and python3 subpackge : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python

[6.] you can also run tests under %check section.

All good but do not add LICENSE file as separate sources, just file a bug or patchset to fix it upstream

Few comments:
* Do not pin a requirements to a specific version, it's guaranteed to break at some point. six >= 1.9.0 is ok.
Requires:       python-six == 1.9.0
* python-requests >= 2.5.2 (or it will never pull newer requests on EL)
* Please add python3 subpackage
* As this is a new package, please follow latest python guidelines.

fixed the above and added python3 subpackage. Please review:

SPEC: https://pkilambi.fedorapeople.org/python-influxdb/python-influxdb.spec
SRPM: https://pkilambi.fedorapeople.org/python-influxdb/python-influxdb-2.9.2-1.fc22.src.rpm

FYI: created pull request to include license in pip distribution

https://github.com/influxdb/influxdb-python/pull/257

Version 2.9.3 is released, now including license text. 
Pradeep could you please update?

This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
  a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
  listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
  case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
  in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
  ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text



Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
  Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/python-bashate
  See:
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names


===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache
     (v2.0)". 30 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/tenobreg/review-packages/1252657-python-
     bashate/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
     license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
     license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     python2-bashate , python3-bashate , python-bashate-doc
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python2-bashate-0.3.1-2.fc22.noarch.rpm
          python3-bashate-0.3.1-2.fc22.noarch.rpm
          python-bashate-doc-0.3.1-2.fc22.noarch.rpm
          python-bashate-0.3.1-2.fc22.src.rpm
python2-bashate.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bashate
python3-bashate.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bashate
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
python2-bashate.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bashate
python3-bashate.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bashate
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.



Requires
--------
python-bashate-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python2-bashate

python2-bashate (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/env
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)
    python-babel
    python-pbr
    python-setuptools

python3-bashate (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/env
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)
    python3-babel
    python3-pbr
    python3-setuptools



Provides
--------
python-bashate-doc:
    python-bashate-doc

python2-bashate:
    python-bashate
    python2-bashate

python3-bashate:
    python3-bashate



Source checksums
----------------
https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/b/bashate/bashate-0.3.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 2398140c35fcb03249640708aa7de652f9cbe680ad6cb09074a89255f6a30419
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2398140c35fcb03249640708aa7de652f9cbe680ad6cb09074a89255f6a30419


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1252657
Buildroot used: fedora-22-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6


Looks good to me.

Please discard my last comment.


This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
  a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
  listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
  case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
  in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
  ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text



Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
     license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
     license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated". 87 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/tenobreg/review-packages/1252657
     -python-bashate/1245791-python-influxdb/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     python3-influxdb
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python-influxdb-2.9.2-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          python3-influxdb-2.9.2-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          python-influxdb-2.9.2-1.fc22.src.rpm
python-influxdb.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.9.1 ['2.9.2-1.fc22', '2.9.2-1']
python-influxdb.src: W: strange-permission influxdb-2.9.2.tar.gz 640
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
python-influxdb.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.9.1 ['2.9.2-1.fc22', '2.9.2-1']
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.



Requires
--------
python3-influxdb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3-dateutil
    python3-pytz
    python3-requests
    python3-six

python-influxdb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python-dateutil
    python-requests
    python-six
    pytz



Provides
--------
python3-influxdb:
    python3-influxdb

python-influxdb:
    python-influxdb



Source checksums
----------------
https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/i/influxdb/influxdb-2.9.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : a6dd5c9684cf8c1cce0b6d642cfd24674661aabc3ac86e4a46413223a6a01f1d
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a6dd5c9684cf8c1cce0b6d642cfd24674661aabc3ac86e4a46413223a6a01f1d


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1245791
Buildroot used: fedora-22-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6


Also, please no commas (,) on BR lines

No activity for almost 4 years, please reopen if you want to.