I can look into this later.

APPROVED

Please fix those minor issues while importing the package:
- Summary is not present.
- Documentation files should get enhanced.
- Maybe execute some tests to validate functionality.


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.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD
     (unspecified)". 109 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/builder/fedora-review/1534050-python-
     nixio/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.
[!]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
     Note: Macros in: python2-nixio (summary), python3-nixio (summary)
=> Add a %global to set a summary by a value expanded from %{sum} macro.

[-]: 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.
[!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
=> see above for missing summary.

[-]: 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.
=> Please add CONTRIBUTING.md and maybe a subpackage for content of docs folder.

[!]: 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.
=> Task info: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24235135

[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.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     python2-nixio , python3-nixio
=> False positive beause python packaging with noarch.

[?]: Package functions as described.
=> Can we execute the tests from test folder in %check?

[?]: Latest version is packaged.
=> There's no release for v1.4.2 but 1.4.1 latest on GitHub.
=> Are you sure about packaging from pythonhosted.org?

[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.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python2-nixio-1.4.2-1.fc28.noarch.rpm
          python3-nixio-1.4.2-1.fc28.noarch.rpm
          python-nixio-1.4.2-1.fc28.src.rpm
python2-nixio.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro Summary(C) %{sum}
python2-nixio.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dataset -> data set, data-set, database
python3-nixio.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro Summary(C) %{sum}
python3-nixio.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dataset -> data set, data-set, database
python-nixio.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dataset -> data set, data-set, database
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
python2-nixio.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro Summary(C) %{sum}
python2-nixio.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dataset -> data set, data-set, database
python2-nixio.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/G-node/nix <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
python3-nixio.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro Summary(C) %{sum}
python3-nixio.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dataset -> data set, data-set, database
python3-nixio.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/G-node/nix <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.



Requires
--------
python2-nixio (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python2dist(h5py)
    python2dist(numpy)

python3-nixio (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3dist(h5py)
    python3dist(numpy)



Provides
--------
python2-nixio:
    python-nixio
    python2-nixio
    python2.7dist(nixio)
    python2dist(nixio)

python3-nixio:
    python3-nixio
    python3.6dist(nixio)
    python3dist(nixio)



Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/n/nixio/nixio-1.4.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : bdc2834d36f36afcf9ff747359fd498c7d99c03a5267811d65fbe4a41f9df69b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bdc2834d36f36afcf9ff747359fd498c7d99c03a5267811d65fbe4a41f9df69b


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1534050
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Are you interested in a review swap?

Thanks for the review Raphael. I'll fix the issues and upload a new spec/srpm set before requesting new SCM. Yeh - sure, please assign me to a review you'd like me to do! :)

Cheers!

I've updated the package as you'd suggested. Scratch build here: 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24347793

* Sun Jan 21 2018 Ankur Sinha <ankursinha AT fedoraproject DOT org> - 1.4.3-1
- Use newer release and GitHub sources
- Run tests
- Define summary macro
- Add doc sub package

Requesting SCM now.

Cheers!

Please show the adjusted spec file.

There are several skipped tests in build.log, can you explain why? Maybe caused from missing dependencies.

https://github.com/sanjayankur31/rpm-specs/blob/python-nixio/python-nixio.spec

Those tests are skipped because nix cpp is not available (nixio.core is not built). As noted in the spec, upstream intends to remove this requirement completely and suggested that it be built without the nix cpp bits.

https://github.com/G-Node/nixpy/pull/276

Cheers!

(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-nixio

python-nixio-1.4.3-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-3381d175d6

python-nixio-1.4.3-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-2bce70970a

python-nixio-1.4.3-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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-2018-3381d175d6

python-nixio-1.4.3-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-2018-2bce70970a

python-nixio-1.4.3-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

python-nixio-1.4.3-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.