I suppose I should note that this is my first package and that I will need a sponsor.

This package has completed a successful Koji scratch build on:

Fedora 22: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10445560
Fedora 23: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10445585

Currently it's failing on EPEL 7, which is a branch I'm looking to target, hopefully I'll have this working later today.

EPEL 7:    http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10445576

Got the EPEL scratch build working with a patch to setup.py, the src rpm and spec file linked have been updated with the changes:

EPEL7:  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10445673

I've run fedora-review against my packaged and realized the package license was missing, I've resolved this issue.

Current spec: https://snuxoll.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-pymssql.spec
Current srpm: https://snuxoll.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-pymssql-2.1.1-1.fc24.src.rpm

I believe there should be no blank line after %description.

Please use macros consistently
I.e. instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT please use %{buildroot}.
%{optflags} instead of $RPM_OPT_FLAGS

rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
is not needed unless you target el5

%if 0%{?fedora}
%bcond_without python3
%else
%bcond_with python3
%endif

What is %bcond_without?
This evaluate on my machine to:

%if 0%{?fedora}
%else
%endif

which raise
error: /tmp/1245889-python-pymssql/srpm/python-pymssql.spec:6: bad %if condition


Why do you use simple
  %doc
in %files section without anything specified after that. Then you do not need to use it at all.

Thanks, those are all present in the python template generated by rpmdev-newspec, so I left them alone, I'll go ahead and correct them and post an updated spec later today.

Ping? Any progress?

Ping? Any progress?

Still no progress. Closing for now. If you ever want to continue, feel free to
reopen this bug or file new one.

I have made some significant changes and am ready to resubmit this package for review

Current spec: https://snuxoll.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-pymssql.spec
Current srpm: https://snuxoll.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-pymssql-2.1.1-1.fc24.src.rpm

I have removed the extraneous %doc tags, and also am building debug packages which previously did not exist.

Scratch builds are passing for both
EPEL7 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12718196

and

Fedora 23 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12718180

%bcond_with and %bcond_without are there to support passing --with and --without python3 to rpmbuild, as these are part of the standard RPM template for python packages I see no reason to remove these.

snuxoll's scratch build of python-pymssql-2.1.1-1.fc24.src.rpm for f24 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12718180

There should be no line after %description (otherwise the blank line goes to description as well). It should be:
%description
A simple database ...

Instead of
%{__python2} setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
you should call:
  %{py2_build}
or use %{optflags} macro which pass various other option e.g. -O2 and hardened build. The same for python3 build.

Also the tar contains tests. Can you run them in %check section?

Tar file contains various documentation. You can add them to package (or to -doc subpackage) as
%files doc
%doc docs/*.rst
%doc docs/ref/*.rst
%doc docs/conf.py
%doc *.rst

(In reply to Miroslav Suchý from comment #11)
> There should be no line after %description (otherwise the blank line goes to
> description as well). It should be:
> %description
> A simple database ...
> 
> Instead of
> %{__python2} setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> you should call:
>   %{py2_build}
> or use %{optflags} macro which pass various other option e.g. -O2 and
> hardened build. The same for python3 build.
> 
> Also the tar contains tests. Can you run them in %check section?
> 
> Tar file contains various documentation. You can add them to package (or to
> -doc subpackage) as
> %files doc
> %doc docs/*.rst
> %doc docs/ref/*.rst
> %doc docs/conf.py
> %doc *.rst

optflags are passed when setup.py is called in the build phase, they are not passed in the install phase as the native extensions have already been build.

Are the py2_build/py3_build and py2_install/py3_install macros supported by the EPEL buildroots? If so I have no problem using them, otherwise as EPEL7 support is desired for this package the 'old' way suffices.

Unfortunately as the unit tests for this project require access to a MS SQL Server database running them inside the rpm check phase isn't going to make much sense.

I can certainly build the documentation and add it to a doc package and fix the description formatting.

> Are the py2_build/py3_build and py2_install/py3_install macros supported by the EPEL buildroots?

They are for sure for EPEL7. I did not try others.

> Unfortunately as the unit tests for this project require access to a MS SQL Server database running them inside the rpm check phase isn't going to make much sense.

fair enough

> I can certainly build the documentation and add it to a doc package and fix the description formatting.

No need to build it. It is already in tar file. So just add those lines I mentioned.

Can you upload updated spec and src.rpm?

Ping. Any progress here?

Looks like the review is stalled :(. I'm really interested in making pymssql available for Fedora and EPEL. Can this review be set as dead?

Closing the review as stated in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1498472 ***