There is shebang outside %_bindir.
There are vendored libraries, not sure if is worth to do provides for that
The vendored libraries don't have license.

I am not sure if this points matters in epel. Also this is just splitting package 
so if you think the problems are not worth to resolve. I do not have problem to approve this.

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

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

===== 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]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[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]: 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.
[-]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[!]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
uses name of subpackage
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[?]: 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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
     packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
     versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
     use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[!]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
good reason for that and to rpm gets rebuilt eggs
===== 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: 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.
[?]: 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:
[?]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[?]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
python34-setuptools.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US distutils -> distillates
python34-setuptools.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/pkg_resources/_vendor/appdirs.py /usr/bin/env python
python34-setuptools.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/pkg_resources/_vendor/appdirs.py 644 /usr/bin/env python
python34-setuptools.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/python34-setuptools-39.2.0/README.rst
python34-setuptools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary easy_install-3.4
python34-setuptools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US distutils -> distillates
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings.


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



Requires
--------
Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PartialHardlinkSets) <= 4.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
Requires: /usr/bin/python3.4 python(abi) = 3.4



Provides
--------
Provides: python34-setuptools = 39.2.0-4.el7

I don't strongly care about the shebengs, but licensing issues are important, thanks for pointing them out, will fix that.

Updated. https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/churchyard/rpms/python3-setuptools/c/0813acd2bbb22c7a8373bea8723814fa9c30e196

If there is no need to have files of licenses, then it's approved.

Normally, I should contact upstream. However this is an ancient version of setuptools and I won't.

FEDORA-EPEL-2019-31bd12e515 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-31bd12e515

python34-setuptools-39.2.0-4.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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-EPEL-2019-31bd12e515

FEDORA-EPEL-2019-31bd12e515 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-31bd12e515

python2-wheel-0.29.0-2.el7, python34-setuptools-39.2.0-4.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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-EPEL-2019-31bd12e515

FEDORA-EPEL-2019-31bd12e515 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-31bd12e515

python-pip-epel-8.1.2-9.el7, python2-wheel-0.29.0-2.el7, python34-setuptools-39.2.0-4.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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-EPEL-2019-31bd12e515

python-pip-epel-8.1.2-9.el7, python2-wheel-0.29.0-2.el7, python34-setuptools-39.2.0-4.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.