As specified in [1], ASL 2.0 requires the license text to be distributed with the binaries/sources. In this case, you should ask upstream to include the full license text in the package. Note that in this case, this is a blocker for this review.

Is there any reason for using "%bcond_with tests" and not running the %check section by default?

Finally, there is a notes.txt file in the sources, saying "Written Consent from Google has been obtained by following the steps outlined at the following location"... [2]. What is this about?

In the README file there is a note, saying:

"Access to the `GoogleGeocoder` requires you to agree to be bound by
Google Maps/Google Earth APIs Terms of Service found at
https://developers.google.com/maps/terms which includes but is not limited to
having a Google Account."

When the author says `GoogleGeocoder`, is he referring to the class GoogleGeocoder inside this package or to the google service it accesses? Of course the former makes less/no sense, but that's something I kept asking myself when I read that.

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
[2] http://support.google.com/maps/bin/static.py?hl=en&ts=1342531&page=ts.cs

In https://developers.google.com/maps/terms, section 9.1, there are restrictions on how a Google Maps API implementation may be used. I am not sure if we can/should include this in Fedora, so I am adding a legal blocker here.

(In reply to Athos Ribeiro from comment #1)
> As specified in [1], ASL 2.0 requires the license text to be distributed
> with the binaries/sources. In this case, you should ask upstream to include
> the full license text in the package. Note that in this case, this is a
> blocker for this review.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/astral/+bug/1642647

> Is there any reason for using "%bcond_with tests" and not running the %check
> section by default?

The tests are communicating with third parties.

> Finally, there is a notes.txt file in the sources, saying "Written Consent
> from Google has been obtained by following the steps outlined at the
> following location"... [2]. What is this about?
> 
> In the README file there is a note, saying:
> 
> "Access to the `GoogleGeocoder` requires you to agree to be bound by
> Google Maps/Google Earth APIs Terms of Service found at
> https://developers.google.com/maps/terms which includes but is not limited to
> having a Google Account."
> 
> When the author says `GoogleGeocoder`, is he referring to the class
> GoogleGeocoder inside this package or to the google service it accesses? Of
> course the former makes less/no sense, but that's something I kept asking
> myself when I read that.

Only 'AstralGeocoder' used so far. My guess is that the developer just want to be on safe side. I'm wondering how 'Online Accounts' or 'Maps' in Gnome were handled. Can't find any details about the usage of Google, Facebook, etc. in 'Online Accounts' or images from 'DigitalGlobe'.

Google Maps API restrictions do not impose additional copyright/license restrictions on the implementation in python-astral. Lifting FE-Legal.

Thanks for the feedback, Tom.

Thank you, spot.

Ok Fabian, let me know here as soon as they add the License text to the package so we can proceed with this.

* Mon Nov 21 2016 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 1.3.2-1
- Add license file
- Run test without third party interaction
- Update to latest upstream release 1.3.2

Updates files:
Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-astral.spec
SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-astral-1.3.2-1.fc24.src.rpm

Hi Fabian,

Package looks great now!

There are 2 issues left before we can have this approved:

1 - Python2 package has no license (you only included it in the python3 package).

2 - The %{sum} macro was not defined, but it is used in all 3 Summary tags.

Here is the fedora-review checklist, already filled. As soon as oyu fix the issues above, I will consider this review done!

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

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

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

Generic:
[!]: 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.
[!]: 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.
[!]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
     Note: Macros in: python2-astral (summary), python3-astral (summary)
[-]: 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.
[!]: 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]: 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:
[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.
[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]: 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.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python2-astral-1.3.2-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
          python3-astral-1.3.2-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
          python-astral-1.3.2-1.fc26.src.rpm
python2-astral.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro Summary(C) %{sum}
python2-astral.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rahukaalam 
python3-astral.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro Summary(C) %{sum}
python3-astral.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rahukaalam 
python-astral.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rahukaalam 
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
python3-astral.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro Summary(C) %{sum}
python3-astral.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rahukaalam 
python2-astral.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro Summary(C) %{sum}
python2-astral.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rahukaalam 
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.



Requires
--------
python3-astral (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3-pytz

python2-astral (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    pytz



Provides
--------
python3-astral:
    python3-astral
    python3.5dist(astral)
    python3dist(astral)

python2-astral:
    python-astral
    python2-astral
    python2.7dist(astral)
    python2dist(astral)



Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/a/astral/astral-1.3.2.zip :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 59767700408fe6b73133e8e141030bd6ba93e6d262c1c4e61edf635edf7333dd
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 59767700408fe6b73133e8e141030bd6ba93e6d262c1c4e61edf635edf7333dd

Thanks for your support to get this package into Fedora.

(In reply to Athos Ribeiro from comment #8)
> Hi Fabian,
> 
> Package looks great now!
> 
> There are 2 issues left before we can have this approved:
> 
> 1 - Python2 package has no license (you only included it in the python3
> package).

Added

> 2 - The %{sum} macro was not defined, but it is used in all 3 Summary tags.

Fixed

Updates files:
Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-astral.spec
SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-astral-1.3.2-2.fc24.src.rpm

Thank oyu for fixing those issues.

Package looks good to me. Approved

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-astral

python-astral-1.3.2-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-72d3dc1dd2

python-astral-1.3.2-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b2bd3d2814

python-astral-1.3.2-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b2bd3d2814

python-astral-1.3.2-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-72d3dc1dd2

python-astral-1.3.2-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

python-astral-1.3.2-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

python-astral-1.3.2-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.