I will take this review.  Can you take bug 1765728 in exchange?  I wouldn't call it trivial, but it should be easy, in spite of the esoteric nature of the package.

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

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

===== Issues =====

Just a couple of minor notes.

1. The SPEC file URL and the spec file inside the SRPM differ, but it is only
   whitespace, so I won't worry about it.

2. This line in %prep is unnecessary:

   rm -rf %{pypi_name}.egg-info

   The Guidelines require that binary python eggs be removed in %prep, but
   the files being removed here are python egg metadata.  Such metadata does
   not have to be removed.

3. Regarding the preservation of timestamps (in SHOULD), please consider
   changing this line in %prep:

   cp -v %{SOURCE1} .

   to this:

   cp -pv %{SOURCE1} .

===== 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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.
[-]: 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]: 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:
[-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
[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:
[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.
[-]: 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.
[!]: 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:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-pandas_flavor-0.1.2-1.fc32.noarch.rpm
          python-pandas-flavor-0.1.2-1.fc32.src.rpm
python3-pandas_flavor.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US accessors -> accessory, accessorizes, accessorize
python-pandas-flavor.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US accessors -> accessory, accessorizes, accessorize
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 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").
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
python3-pandas_flavor.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US accessors -> accessory, accessorizes, accessorize
python3-pandas_flavor.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://pypi.org/pypi/pandas_flavor <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Zsailer/pandas_flavor/master/LICENSE :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 0db387d10622dc7b604698e06a0b80c57cd4254d229b45bb7721a5252c19ade5
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0db387d10622dc7b604698e06a0b80c57cd4254d229b45bb7721a5252c19ade5
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/pandas_flavor/pandas_flavor-0.1.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 0add4a50e9e18decb986c5ad983ef8cc3fcedb195443500a0e4ea41cb70e7b4d
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0add4a50e9e18decb986c5ad983ef8cc3fcedb195443500a0e4ea41cb70e7b4d


Requires
--------
python3-pandas_flavor (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3.8dist(pandas)



Provides
--------
python3-pandas_flavor:
    python-pandas_flavor
    python3-pandas_flavor
    python3.8dist(pandas-flavor)
    python3dist(pandas-flavor)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/jamesjer/1770496-python-pandas-flavor/srpm/python-pandas-flavor.spec	2019-11-10 17:11:34.295449275 -0700
+++ /home/jamesjer/1770496-python-pandas-flavor/srpm-unpacked/python-pandas-flavor.spec	2019-11-09 15:34:41.000000000 -0700
@@ -39,5 +39,5 @@
 %prep
 %autosetup -n %{pypi_name}-%{version}
-cp -v %{SOURCE1} .
+cp -v %{SOURCE1} . 
 
 rm -rf %{pypi_name}.egg-info


Generated by fedora-review 0.7.3 (44b83c7) last change: 2019-09-18
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1770496 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Perl, SugarActivity, Java, Ruby, Haskell, PHP, C/C++, fonts, R
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Thanks for the quick review, Jerry.

I've made the following changes now:

* Mon Nov 11 2019 Ankur Sinha <ankursinha AT fedoraproject DOT org> - 0.1.2-1
- Update as per review comments
- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1770496
- Comment out egg info removal
- use -p in cp to preserve time stamp


Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-pandas-flavor/python-pandas-flavor.spec
SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-pandas-flavor/python-pandas-flavor-0.1.2-1.fc32.src.rpm

Cheers,
Ankur

Sorry, I meant to approve this last night, but forgot.  I didn't mean to make you wait for such trivial changes.  This package is APPROVED.

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pandas-flavor

FEDORA-2019-3703f81394 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-3703f81394

FEDORA-2019-bea3026452 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-bea3026452

python-pandas-flavor-0.1.2-1.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-2019-bea3026452

python-pandas-flavor-0.1.2-1.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-2019-3703f81394

python-pandas-flavor-0.1.2-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

python-pandas-flavor-0.1.2-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.