- Please modify the description. Perhaps something like this:

One can write a setup.py with no version information specified. vcversioner
will find a recent, properly-formatted VCS tag and extract a version from it.
It's much more convenient to be able to use your version control system's
tagging mechanism to derive a version number than to have to duplicate that
information all over the place.

- License file is missing. Consider to switch to the upstream tarball which contains the license file.
- There are also tests available (test_vcversioner.py).



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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "ISC License". 6 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/fab/Documents/repos/reviews/1856163-python-
     vcversioner/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.
[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 20480 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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]: 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).
[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-vcversioner-2.16.0.0-1.fc33.noarch.rpm
          python-vcversioner-2.16.0.0-1.fc33.src.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend.
warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend.
python3-vcversioner.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/habnabit/vcversioner <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/v/vcversioner/vcversioner-2.16.0.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : dae60c17a479781f44a4010701833f1829140b1eeccd258762a74974aa06e19b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : dae60c17a479781f44a4010701833f1829140b1eeccd258762a74974aa06e19b


Requires
--------
python3-vcversioner (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3dist(setuptools)



Provides
--------
python3-vcversioner:
    python-vcversioner
    python3-vcversioner
    python3.9-vcversioner
    python3.9dist(vcversioner)
    python3dist(vcversioner)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1856163
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python
Disabled plugins: Perl, SugarActivity, Java, Haskell, PHP, R, C/C++, Ocaml, fonts
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

description updated, but the tarball I think upstream expect people to use from PyPi

https://github.com/habnabit/vcversioner/blob/master/vcversioner.py#L199

The PR for adding the COPYING (https://github.com/habnabit/vcversioner/pull/11) file to the PyPI release tarball is open for almost three and a half years. 

The GitHub tarball includes the tests and the license file. From my point of view, would be easier to use the actual upstream source than downloading and handling two files manually.

This is dependency of python-ee.

Could you please provide an updated spec file? Then we could proceed with the review.

Any progress here?

This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.

(In reply to Fabian Affolter from comment #4)
> This is dependency of python-ee.

yeah, the only reason for submitting this package is to satisfy the dependencies of others


let me add the COPYING

look now, 


Spec URL: https://itamarjp.fedorapeople.org/review/python-vcversioner.spec
SRPM URL: https://itamarjp.fedorapeople.org/review/python-vcversioner-2.16.0.0-1.fc32.src.rpm

Looks like that "Requires: python3dist(setuptools)" could be dropped as the dependency generator is not disable. It's your call.

Commend addressed. Package APPROVED.

s/Commend/Comments/g

https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/29357

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