Are you interested in a review swap? Maybe take a look into bug #1752210.

Review swap maybe with bug #1709037.

FTBFS
Task info: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=37674068

sphinx-build -b html -d _build/doctrees   . _build/html
Running Sphinx v2.1.2
BUILDSTDERR: Configuration error:
BUILDSTDERR: There is a programmable error in your configuration file:
BUILDSTDERR: Traceback (most recent call last):
BUILDSTDERR:   File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/sphinx/config.py", line 361, in eval_config_file
BUILDSTDERR:     execfile_(filename, namespace)
BUILDSTDERR:   File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/sphinx/util/pycompat.py", line 86, in execfile_
BUILDSTDERR:     exec(code, _globals)
BUILDSTDERR:   File "/builddir/build/BUILD/dateparser-0.7.1/docs/conf.py", line 34, in <module>
BUILDSTDERR:     import dateparser
BUILDSTDERR:   File "/builddir/build/BUILD/dateparser-0.7.1/dateparser/__init__.py", line 4, in <module>
BUILDSTDERR:     from .date import DateDataParser
BUILDSTDERR:   File "/builddir/build/BUILD/dateparser-0.7.1/dateparser/date.py", line 11, in <module>
BUILDSTDERR:     from dateutil.relativedelta import relativedelta
BUILDSTDERR: ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'dateutil'

This is needed now for tests of the new version of python-arrow. ;)

* Thu Oct 17 2019 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 0.7.2-1
- Update to latest upstream release 0.7.2

Updated files:
Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-dateparser.spec
SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-dateparser-0.7.2-1.fc30.src.rpm

There appears to be a problem running the checks when trying to rebuild the SRPM in mock (configured for rawhide):

Executing(%check): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.oQhrEv
+ umask 022
+ cd /builddir/build/BUILD
+ cd dateparser-0.7.2
+ PYTHONPATH=/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python-dateparser-0.7.2-1.fc32.x86_64//usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages
+ pytest-3.8 tests
============================= test session starts ==============================
platform linux -- Python 3.8.0, pytest-4.6.6, py-1.8.0, pluggy-0.12.0
rootdir: /builddir/build/BUILD/dateparser-0.7.2
collected 21838 items / 4 errors / 21834 selected                              

==================================== ERRORS ====================================
_____________________ ERROR collecting tests/test_date.py ______________________
ImportError while importing test module '/builddir/build/BUILD/dateparser-0.7.2/tests/test_date.py'.
Hint: make sure your test modules/packages have valid Python names.
Traceback:
tests/test_date.py:9: in <module>
    from mock import Mock, patch
E   ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'mock'
__________________ ERROR collecting tests/test_date_parser.py __________________
ImportError while importing test module '/builddir/build/BUILD/dateparser-0.7.2/tests/test_date_parser.py'.
Hint: make sure your test modules/packages have valid Python names.
Traceback:
tests/test_date_parser.py:8: in <module>
    from mock import patch, Mock
E   ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'mock'
_____________ ERROR collecting tests/test_freshness_date_parser.py _____________
ImportError while importing test module '/builddir/build/BUILD/dateparser-0.7.2/tests/test_freshness_date_parser.py'.
Hint: make sure your test modules/packages have valid Python names.
Traceback:
tests/test_freshness_date_parser.py:10: in <module>
    from mock import Mock, patch
E   ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'mock'
________________ ERROR collecting tests/test_timezone_parser.py ________________
ImportError while importing test module '/builddir/build/BUILD/dateparser-0.7.2/tests/test_timezone_parser.py'.
Hint: make sure your test modules/packages have valid Python names.
Traceback:
tests/test_timezone_parser.py:5: in <module>
    from mock import Mock, patch
E   ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'mock'
=============================== warnings summary ===============================
tests/test_languages.py:2104
  /builddir/build/BUILD/dateparser-0.7.2/tests/test_languages.py:2104: DeprecationWarning: invalid escape sequence \d
    {'simplifications': [{'(\d+)\s*hr(s?)\g<(.+?)>': r'\1 hour\2'}]},

tests/test_loading.py:104
  /builddir/build/BUILD/dateparser-0.7.2/tests/test_loading.py:104: DeprecationWarning: invalid escape sequence \(
    UNKNOWN_LANGUAGES_EXCEPTION_RE = re.compile("Unknown language\(s\): (.+)")

tests/test_loading.py:105
  /builddir/build/BUILD/dateparser-0.7.2/tests/test_loading.py:105: DeprecationWarning: invalid escape sequence \(
    UNKNOWN_LOCALES_EXCEPTION_RE = re.compile("Unknown locale\(s\): (.+)")

tests/test_settings.py:28
  /builddir/build/BUILD/dateparser-0.7.2/tests/test_settings.py:28: DeprecationWarning: invalid escape sequence \+
    param('12 Feb 2015 10:30 PM +0100', datetime(2015, 2, 12, 22, 30), 'UTC\+01:00'),

tests/test_settings.py:132
  /builddir/build/BUILD/dateparser-0.7.2/tests/test_settings.py:132: DeprecationWarning: invalid escape sequence \}
    with self.assertRaisesRegexp(TypeError, 'Invalid.*None\}'):

tests/test_settings.py:135
  /builddir/build/BUILD/dateparser-0.7.2/tests/test_settings.py:135: DeprecationWarning: invalid escape sequence \}
    with self.assertRaisesRegexp(TypeError, 'Invalid.*None\}'):

tests/test_settings.py:138
  /builddir/build/BUILD/dateparser-0.7.2/tests/test_settings.py:138: DeprecationWarning: invalid escape sequence \}
    with self.assertRaisesRegexp(TypeError, 'Invalid.*None\}'):

tests/test_utils.py:64
  /builddir/build/BUILD/dateparser-0.7.2/tests/test_utils.py:64: DeprecationWarning: invalid escape sequence \+
    param(datetime(2015, 12, 12), timezone='UTC+3', zone='UTC\+03:00'),

-- Docs: https://docs.pytest.org/en/latest/warnings.html
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Interrupted: 4 errors during collection !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
===================== 8 warnings, 4 error in 5.54 seconds ======================
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.oQhrEv (%check)


RPM build errors:
    Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.oQhrEv (%check)
Finish: rpmbuild python-dateparser-0.7.2-1.fc30.src.rpm
Finish: build phase for python-dateparser-0.7.2-1.fc30.src.rpm
ERROR: Exception(python-dateparser-0.7.2-1.fc30.src.rpm) Config(fedora-rawhide-x86_64) 0 minutes 39 seconds
INFO: Results and/or logs in: /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result
ERROR: Command failed: 
 # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M 86f6809f109c4dbbb610bdb8658c28bf -D /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root -a --capability=cap_ipc_lock --bind=/tmp/mock-resolv.qmpdo54s:/etc/resolv.conf --setenv=TERM=vt100 --setenv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/builddir --setenv=HOSTNAME=mock --setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin --setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf "\033]0;<mock-chroot>\007" --setenv=PS1=<mock-chroot> \s-\v\$  --setenv=LANG=en_US.UTF-8 -u mockbuild bash --login -c /usr/bin/rpmbuild -bb --target x86_64 --nodeps /builddir/build/SPECS/python-dateparser.spec

Hmmm, scratch build works.

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=39086905

No, it's not.

Uh, please double-check that link... it built the SRPM, but wasn't able to finish building the resulting binary RPMs.  For example, here's the build log showing the failure: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=39086970&volume=DEFAULT&name=build.log&offset=-4000

I disabled the test for now till upstream merge the changes.


* Mon Nov 18 2019 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 0.7.2-3
- Disable tests

* Mon Nov 18 2019 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 0.7.2-2
- Fix BRs

Update files:
Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-dateparser.spec
SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-dateparser-0.7.2-3.fc31.src.rpm

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

* License for the code is BSD (3-clause), but the spec file states MIT


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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
     upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
     licenses manually.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.8/site-
     packages/dateparser(to, defaulting, set, C, Failed, locale,),
     /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/dateparser-0.7.2-py3.8.egg-info(to,
     defaulting, set, C, Failed, locale,), /usr/lib/python3.8/site-
     packages/dateparser/__pycache__(to, defaulting, set, C, Failed,
     locale,), /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/dateparser/calendars(to,
     defaulting, set, C, Failed, locale,), /usr/lib/python3.8/site-
     packages/dateparser/calendars/__pycache__(to, defaulting, set, C,
     Failed, locale,), /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/dateparser/data(to,
     defaulting, set, C, Failed, locale,), /usr/lib/python3.8/site-
     packages/dateparser/data/__pycache__(to, defaulting, set, C, Failed,
     locale,), /usr/lib/python3.8/site-
     packages/dateparser/data/date_translation_data(to, defaulting, set, C,
     Failed, locale,), /usr/lib/python3.8/site-
     packages/dateparser/data/date_translation_data/__pycache__(to,
     defaulting, set, C, Failed, locale,), /usr/lib/python3.8/site-
     packages/dateparser/data/numeral_translation_data(to, defaulting, set,
     C, Failed, locale,), /usr/lib/python3.8/site-
     packages/dateparser/data/numeral_translation_data/__pycache__(to,
     defaulting, set, C, Failed, locale,), /usr/lib/python3.8/site-
     packages/dateparser/languages(to, defaulting, set, C, Failed,
     locale,), /usr/lib/python3.8/site-
     packages/dateparser/languages/__pycache__(to, defaulting, set, C,
     Failed, locale,), /usr/lib/python3.8/site-
     packages/dateparser/search(to, defaulting, set, C, Failed, locale,),
     /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/dateparser/search/__pycache__(to,
     defaulting, set, C, Failed, locale,), /usr/lib/python3.8/site-
     packages/dateparser/utils(to, defaulting, set, C, Failed, locale,),
     /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/dateparser/utils/__pycache__(to,
     defaulting, set, C, Failed, locale,), /usr/lib/python3.8/site-
     packages/dateparser_data(to, defaulting, set, C, Failed, locale,),
     /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/dateparser_data/__pycache__(to,
     defaulting, set, C, Failed, locale,),
     /usr/share/doc/python3-dateparser(to, defaulting, set, C, Failed,
     locale,), /usr/share/licenses/python3-dateparser(to, defaulting, set,
     C, Failed, locale,), /usr/share/doc/python-dateparser-doc(to,
     defaulting, set, C, Failed, locale,), /usr/share/doc/python-
     dateparser-doc/html(to, defaulting, set, C, Failed, locale,),
     /usr/share/doc/python-dateparser-doc/html/_modules(to, defaulting,
     set, C, Failed, locale,), /usr/share/doc/python-dateparser-
     doc/html/_modules/dateparser(to, defaulting, set, C, Failed, locale,),
     /usr/share/doc/python-dateparser-
     doc/html/_modules/dateparser/languages(to, defaulting, set, C, Failed,
     locale,), /usr/share/doc/python-dateparser-doc/html/_sources(to,
     defaulting, set, C, Failed, locale,), /usr/share/doc/python-
     dateparser-doc/html/_static(to, defaulting, set, C, Failed, locale,)
[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.
[x]: 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 40960 bytes in 4 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 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
     Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?)
[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

===== 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
     python3-dateparser
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: 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: python3-dateparser-0.7.2-3.fc32.noarch.rpm
          python-dateparser-doc-0.7.2-3.fc32.noarch.rpm
          python-dateparser-0.7.2-3.fc32.src.rpm
python-dateparser.src:57: W: macro-in-comment %check
python-dateparser.src:58: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
python-dateparser.src:58: W: macro-in-comment %{python3_sitelib}
python-dateparser.src:58: W: macro-in-comment %{python3_version}
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
perl: warning: Setting locale failed.
perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings:
	LANGUAGE = (unset),
	LC_ALL = (unset),
	LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8",
	LANG = "en_US.UTF-8"
    are supported and installed on your system.
perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C").
perl: warning: Setting locale failed.
perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings:
	LANGUAGE = (unset),
	LC_ALL = (unset),
	LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8",
	LANG = "en_US.UTF-8"
    are supported and installed on your system.
perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C").
python-dateparser-doc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/scrapinghub/dateparser <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
python3-dateparser.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/scrapinghub/dateparser <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/scrapinghub/dateparser/archive/v0.7.2/dateparser-0.7.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 7e20a2d201f05b21e7d131c4147faf4be144c52d4b26bbf49b0d941f34f4268b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7e20a2d201f05b21e7d131c4147faf4be144c52d4b26bbf49b0d941f34f4268b


Requires
--------
python3-dateparser (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3.8dist(python-dateutil)
    python3.8dist(pytz)
    python3.8dist(regex)
    python3.8dist(tzlocal)

python-dateparser-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
python3-dateparser:
    python-dateparser
    python3-dateparser
    python3.8dist(dateparser)
    python3dist(dateparser)

python-dateparser-doc:
    python-dateparser-doc



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.3 (44b83c7) last change: 2019-09-18
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1748956
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-{{ target_arch }}
Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, Perl, PHP, fonts, Haskell, SugarActivity, C/C++, R, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Thanks for your comment.


* Thu Nov 19 2019 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 0.7.2-4
- Fix license tag (rhbz#1748956)

Update files:
Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-dateparser.spec
SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-dateparser-0.7.2-4.fc31.src.rpm

Jared, could be take a look again?

 - Fix changelog entry

warning: bogus date in %changelog: Thu Nov 19 2019 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 0.7.2-4

  - Bump to 0.7.4 and activate tests (they pass)



Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issue before import.


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: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
     License", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 676 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/python-dateparser/review-python-
     dateparser/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.
[-]: 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 40960 bytes in 4 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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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.
[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]: 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
[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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     python3-dateparser
[x]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: 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: python3-dateparser-0.7.4-4.fc33.noarch.rpm
          python-dateparser-doc-0.7.4-4.fc33.noarch.rpm
          python-dateparser-0.7.4-4.fc33.src.rpm
python-dateparser.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Thu Nov 19 2019 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 0.7.4-4
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.

Thanks for the review.

FEDORA-2020-23600140c6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-23600140c6

FEDORA-2020-fcb66f97ea has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-fcb66f97ea

FEDORA-2020-08db6c1706 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-08db6c1706

python-dateparser-0.7.4-1.fc32 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 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-2020-23600140c6

python-dateparser-0.7.4-1.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-2020-08db6c1706

python-dateparser-0.7.4-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2020-fcb66f97ea

python-dateparser-0.7.4-1.fc32 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

python-dateparser-0.7.4-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

python-dateparser-0.7.4-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.