Looks good mostly. I think using the latest git snapshot from Github would fix most issues. Here's the review:

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.

The Github repo does seem to include the LICENSE text. Are you using the source
from pypi?
https://github.com/danvk/RangeHTTPServer

The github tar also include tests. So this should be used. I think you can use
the latest git snapshot here, as the latest commit is from August 2018.

[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "*No copyright* Apache License", "Unknown or generated". 7
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/asinha/1665563-python-rangehttpserver/licensecheck.txt

License seems to be ASL. That's what setup.py says. Please re-check

[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 10240 bytes in 1 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.
[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:
[!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
     Note: Could not download Source0: https://github.com/berdario
     /resumable-urlretrieve/archive/1.2.0/rangehttpserver-1.2.0.tar.gz
     See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags
^ This is because the URL is wrong. It should be:
https://github.com/danvk/RangeHTTPServer

[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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
Noted above.

[-]: 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.
Github tarball includes tests.

[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]: 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: python3-rangehttpserver-1.2.0-1.fc30.noarch.rpm
          python-rangehttpserver-1.2.0-1.fc30.src.rpm
python3-rangehttpserver.noarch: E: no-description-tag
python3-rangehttpserver.noarch: W: invalid-license MIT License
python3-rangehttpserver.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/RangeHTTPServer/__init__.py 644 /usr/bin/python 
python3-rangehttpserver.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/RangeHTTPServer/__main__.py 644 /usr/bin/python 
python-rangehttpserver.src: W: invalid-license MIT License
python-rangehttpserver.src:44: W: macro-in-comment %check
python-rangehttpserver.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://github.com/berdario/resumable-urlretrieve/archive/1.2.0/rangehttpserver-1.2.0.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 4 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Requires
--------
python3-rangehttpserver (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3dist(requests)



Provides
--------
python3-rangehttpserver:
    python3-rangehttpserver
    python3.7dist(rangehttpserver)
    python3dist(rangehttpserver)



Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1665563
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

A few additional comments:

%{desc} is missing from the python3 subpackage under %description.

The command in prep will need a minor tweak to manage the error with shebangs that rpmlint points out.

Hi Ankur --

Spec URL: https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-rangehttpserver.spec
SRPM URL: https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-rangehttpserver-1.2.0-2.fc29.src.rpm

Cheers,

I cannot add the license file -> https://github.com/danvk/RangeHTTPServer/pull/15

Almost there:

- please re-generate the spec with the git source. review-helper complains of an md5check error:
https://github.com/danvk/RangeHTTPServer/archive/1.2.0/rangehttpserver-1.2.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : ce47a420d04c8161d28f35538b3d2fc77cea5c54968c3e3e6a508d64e04ea7a2
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 17aad58bec8ccd95f9d5bc9cff2bf3597d002eff08e1ced558c8756b61467a94
diff -r also reports differences


- the source tar does include a LICENSE file. Please include it.
- the tests are commented out: do they not run?
- please correct rpmlint errors:

python3-rangehttpserver.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/RangeHTTPServer/__init__.py 644 /usr/bin/python 
python3-rangehttpserver.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/RangeHTTPServer/__main__.py 644 /usr/bin/python 

- Please include python3-setuptools in BR explicitly
- Package appears to require nose for tests:

> find . -type f -name "*.py" -exec sed -i '/^#![  ]*\/usr\/bin\/env.*$/ d' {} 2>/dev/null ';'

"2>/dev/null" should be removed. This command should not emit any warnings or errors, and if it does, we'd like to see them during build.


> find RangeHTTPServer/__init__.py -type f | xargs chmod 0644 || true
> find RangeHTTPServer/__main__.py -type f | xargs chmod 0644 || true

chmod 0644 RangeHTTPServer/__init__.py RangeHTTPServer/__main__.py

(find is unecessary here, and here too, those commands should not fail during build, so their return value should not be ignored.)

Spec URL: https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-rangehttpserver.spec
SRPM: https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-RangeHTTPServer-1.2.0-3.fc29.src.rpm

Sorry for the delay, Luis! I was out all evening. The package is almost ready:


* spec and package name do not match: they should both be completely lowercase, or they should both be RangeHTTPServer, not a mixture of the two.

* still have errors on these files. The shebang needs to be removed here (since these files cannot be run as scripts: they are only part of the module and will be imported only).
python3-RangeHTTPServer.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/RangeHTTPServer/__init__.py 644 /usr/bin/python 
python3-RangeHTTPServer.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/RangeHTTPServer/__main__.py 644 /usr/bin/python 

* please remove the unused bcond_with statement.
* please add a comment to explain why that test file was removed

Cheers,
Ankur

Spec URL: https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-rangehttpserver.spec
SRPM: https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-RangeHTTPServer-1.2.0-3.fc29.src.rpm

The __main__ file should not be removed. It allows the package to be executed directly (python -m ...). Removing this file would make the package in fedora behave differently than the upstream package, and we don't want that. Please just chmod it like the other file.

I'm not too happy about this comment:
> # the test server_test removed because need network

It doesn't seem to be true, the tests only refer to localhost. If they fail, then it's because of some different reason.

Looks good otherwise.

Yep, test_range_request seems to hang here. I see "error: [Errno 98] Address already in use" so it's some error in the tests.
I'd suggest opening an upstream issue.

(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #11)
> Yep, test_range_request seems to hang here. I see "error: [Errno 98] Address
> already in use" so it's some error in the tests.
> I'd suggest opening an upstream issue.

https://github.com/danvk/RangeHTTPServer/issues/21

I created the issue in upstream.

Cheers,

Please post an updated spec file with the other __main__.py restored (comment #10).

Spec URL: https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-rangehttpserver.spec
SRPM: https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-RangeHTTPServer-1.2.0-3.fc29.src.rpm

Well ... no. Why jump from one extreme to the other? In the previous version of the spec file, %check was running properly with the one test disabled. I object to the _comment_, which was obviously invalid. This version removes the %check section completely. There's no reason for this. Please add back the %check section, and in the comment, instead of saying "the test server_test removed because need network", just add the URL to the upstream issue.

Zbigniew: since you're reviewing this already, would you be able to also please approve it when done and set the review-flag?

Spec URL: https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-rangehttpserver.spec
SRPM: https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-rangehttpserver-1.2.0-4.fc29.src.rpm

(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #15)
> Well ... no. Why jump from one extreme to the other? In the previous version
> of the spec file, %check was running properly with the one test disabled. I
> object to the _comment_, which was obviously invalid. This version removes
> the %check section completely. There's no reason for this. Please add back
> the %check section, and in the comment, instead of saying "the test
> server_test removed because need network", just add the URL to the upstream
> issue.

# the server_test removed because need network
# Upstream Issue
# https://github.com/danvk/RangeHTTPServer/issues/21
rm -rf tests/server_test.py

chmod 0644 RangeHTTPServer/__init__.py RangeHTTPServer/__main__.py

Spec URL: https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-rangehttpserver.spec
SRPM: https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-rangehttpserver-1.2.0-4.fc29.src.rpm

Thanks. Looks good. Package is APPROVED.

python-rangehttpserver-1.2.0-5.fc30 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-7cfad91e80

python-rangehttpserver-1.2.0-9.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-6564f9694c

python-rangehttpserver-1.2.0-9.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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-2019-6564f9694c

python-rangehttpserver-1.2.0-5.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-2019-7cfad91e80

python-rangehttpserver-1.2.0-9.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

python-rangehttpserver-1.2.0-5.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.