koji build --scratch rawhide python-numpoly-0.1.11-1.fc31.src.rpm 
Uploading srpm: python-numpoly-0.1.11-1.fc31.src.rpm
[====================================] 100% 00:00:00  49.06 KiB 152.31 KiB/sec
Created task: 41994431
Task info: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=41994431
Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)...
41994431 build (rawhide, python-numpoly-0.1.11-1.fc31.src.rpm): free
41994431 build (rawhide, python-numpoly-0.1.11-1.fc31.src.rpm): free -> open (buildvm-armv7-21.arm.fedoraproject.org)
  41994432 rebuildSRPM (noarch): open (buildhw-04.phx2.fedoraproject.org)
  41994432 rebuildSRPM (noarch): open (buildhw-04.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed
  0 free  1 open  1 done  0 failed
  41994437 buildArch (python-numpoly-0.1.11-1.fc33.src.rpm, noarch): open (buildvm-armv7-23.arm.fedoraproject.org)
  41994437 buildArch (python-numpoly-0.1.11-1.fc33.src.rpm, noarch): open (buildvm-armv7-23.arm.fedoraproject.org) -> closed
  0 free  1 open  2 done  0 failed
41994431 build (rawhide, python-numpoly-0.1.11-1.fc31.src.rpm): open (buildvm-armv7-21.arm.fedoraproject.org) -> closed
  0 free  0 open  3 done  0 failed

41994431 build (rawhide, python-numpoly-0.1.11-1.fc31.src.rpm) completed successfully

Just been looking at this.

Luis, the tool uses `pyproject.toml`, so you'll have to use different macros to build it correctly. Take a look at this:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros

Other things I noticed:

- the License field is wrong, should just be "BSD".
- tests aren't run, please enable them,
- there are a few other rpmlint errors, please run rpmlint on the spec/srpm and correct those.

I'll do a full review once you've updated the spec to use the pyproject macros.

Cheers,
Ankur

Any updates here Luis?

Luis, any progress here?

Hi Luis,

Any progress here?

SPEC: https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-numpoly.spec
SRPM: https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-numpoly-0.1.16-1.fc32.src.rpm

Cheers,

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

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


Issues:
=======
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
  in the spec URL.
  Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/asinha/dump/fedora-
  reviews/1808552-python-numpoly/diff.txt
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/
^
Please correct this.

- Cosmetic: please use either spaces or tabs, but please do not mix both.
- You can use %pypi_source for Source0?
  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_macros

- Tests haven't been run? Please enable them.


===== 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 2-clause "Simplified" License", "Unknown or generated". 82
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/1808552-python-
     numpoly/licensecheck.txt

[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.
^
May need sympy, but it isn't listed in the toml file.

[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 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 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]: 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.
^
Provides dist-info, so should be OK.

[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).
[-]: 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.
^
Test have not been run. Please enable them.

[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:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Bad spec filename: /home/asinha/dump/fedora-
     reviews/1808552-python-numpoly/srpm-unpacked/python-numpoly.spec
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-numpoly-0.1.16-1.fc33.noarch.rpm
          python-numpoly-0.1.16-1.fc33.src.rpm
python3-numpoly.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) numpy -> bumpy, lumpy, dumpy
python3-numpoly.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Numpoly is a generic library for creating, manipulating and evaluating arrays of polynomials.
python3-numpoly.noarch: E: useless-provides python-numpoly
python3-numpoly.noarch: E: useless-provides python38-numpoly
python-numpoly.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) numpy -> bumpy, lumpy, dumpy
python-numpoly.src: E: description-line-too-long C Numpoly is a generic library for creating, manipulating and evaluating arrays of polynomials.
python-numpoly.src:53: W: macro-in-comment %check
python-numpoly.src:54: W: macro-in-comment %{python3_sitelib}
python-numpoly.src:55: W: macro-in-comment %{python3_version}
python-numpoly.src:15: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 6, tab: line 15)
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 6 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
python3-numpoly.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) numpy -> bumpy, lumpy, dumpy
python3-numpoly.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Numpoly is a generic library for creating, manipulating and evaluating arrays of polynomials.
python3-numpoly.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/jonathf/numpoly <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
python3-numpoly.noarch: E: useless-provides python-numpoly
python3-numpoly.noarch: E: useless-provides python38-numpoly
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 2 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/jonathf/numpoly/archive/v0.1.16/numpoly-0.1.16.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : fe4dfa54aeb5284c5226559c485e3fd2a9302d188c52f20e9ea9bf73e5c7739a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 25034ad97e54e988faad2b5c76980710a4dbda94049392fd3eb2f13d65ce3b77
diff -r also reports differences


Requires
--------
python3-numpoly (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (python3.8dist(numpy) >= 1.16 with python3.8dist(numpy) < 2)
    python(abi)
    python3.8dist(six)



Provides
--------
python3-numpoly:
    python-numpoly
    python3-numpoly
    python3.8dist(numpoly)
    python38-numpoly
    python3dist(numpoly)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1808552
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: R, Java, Haskell, fonts, Ocaml, Perl, PHP, C/C++, SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Test Fixed (thanks Ankur)
Source Fixed
Spaces and cosmetics Fixed

SPEC:https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-numpoly.spec
SRPM:https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-numpoly-0.1.16-2.fc32.src.rpm

Cheers,

Looks good. XXX APPROVED XXX

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

FEDORA-2020-b1370a85f0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-b1370a85f0

FEDORA-2020-761059aa6d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-761059aa6d

FEDORA-2020-761059aa6d has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-761059aa6d \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-761059aa6d

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2020-b1370a85f0 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-b1370a85f0 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-b1370a85f0

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2020-761059aa6d has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2020-b1370a85f0 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.