The scratch build works in koji for rawhide but pulling this bugzilla down with fedora-review isn't working and gives the error:

===
+ /usr/bin/python2 setup.py build
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "setup.py", line 1, in <module>
    from xstatic.pkg import tv4 as xs
ImportError: cannot import name tv4
RPM build errors:
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.0xpsW1 (%build)
    Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.0xpsW1 (%build)
Child return code was: 1
===

Can't figure it out for the time being, will give a fresh look later.

I'll be sponsoring David, reviews are welcome.

FYI it turns out my fedora-review failure was because it is not possible to build two xstatic packages in the same environment. Since I had been working on other xstatic packages as well, just cleaning my mock root resolved the issue.

https://bitbucket.org/thomaswaldmann/xstatic/issues/2/cannot-build-a-new-xstatic-package-with

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dmsimard/python-XStatic-tv4-distgit/master/python-XStatic-tv4.spec
SRPM URL: https://github.com/dmsimard/python-XStatic-tv4-distgit/raw/master/python-XStatic-tv4-1.2.7.0-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: tv4 - Tiny Validator (for v4 JSON Schema) JavaScript library packaged for setuptools (easy_install) / pip.

Use json-schema draft v4 to validate simple values and complex objects
using a rich validation vocabulary.
Fedora Account System Username: dmsimard

Koji scratch build available at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15158982

Informal package review. Looks good to me

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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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
[-]: 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.
[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 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.
[x]: 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.
[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]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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.

my fedora review script does not work for this bug and checked manually, i'm not sure if i did it correctly but manually constructing the download link does not work:

https://pypi.io/packages/source/X/XStatic-tv4-1.2.7.0.tar.gz

gives 404

I might be doing something wrong but it's worth commenting about it.

(In reply to Ivan Chavero from comment #6)
> my fedora review script does not work for this bug and checked manually, i'm
> not sure if i did it correctly but manually constructing the download link
> does not work:
> 
> https://pypi.io/packages/source/X/XStatic-tv4-1.2.7.0.tar.gz
> 
> gives 404
> 
> I might be doing something wrong but it's worth commenting about it.

Nope, you're not doing anything wrong. The link should be

https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/X/XStatic-tv4-1.2.7.0.tar.gz

That works well for other packages, but somehow it does not for this one here.

This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems
that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please
respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the
submitter to proceed with the review.

If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the
fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take
this ticket.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.

This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket reviewer failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we reset the status and the assignee of this ticket.