Taking this review

Some initial notes:
- use %py_provides instead of %python_provide if you want to target Fedora 32 or below. For F33 or above you don't need this at all: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_the_py_provides_macro
- you can use %{py3_dist ...} instead of python3dist(...) - https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_requires_and_buildrequires_with_standardized_names
  this is optional though

Apart from changing %python_provide to %py_provides as noted previously, everything else is fine.

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.
  => Automated license check seems to be erroneous. This is MIT license as stated.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat
     License". 26 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/1903509-python-
     wled/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.
[ ]: 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 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.
[!]: 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.
[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-wled-0.4.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
          python-wled-0.4.4-1.fc34.src.rpm
python3-wled.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US programmatically -> pro grammatically, pro-grammatically, programmatic ally
python-wled.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US programmatically -> pro grammatically, pro-grammatically, programmatic ally
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
python3-wled.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US programmatically -> pro grammatically, pro-grammatically, programmatic ally
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/frenck/python-wled/archive/v0.4.4/wled-0.4.4.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 816f8b370820093e3ef565a415c81ff96ab20e971b6a981aa1603a0cdcbf8df2
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 816f8b370820093e3ef565a415c81ff96ab20e971b6a981aa1603a0cdcbf8df2


Requires
--------
python3-wled (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3.9dist(aiohttp)
    python3.9dist(backoff)
    python3.9dist(packaging)
    python3.9dist(yarl)



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



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1903509
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Perl, Java, Haskell, R, fonts, PHP, C/C++, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

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 Michel Alexandre Salim from comment #1)
> Taking this review
> 
> Some initial notes:
> - use %py_provides instead of %python_provide if you want to target Fedora
> 32 or below. For F33 or above you don't need this at all:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/
> #_the_py_provides_macro
> - you can use %{py3_dist ...} instead of python3dist(...) -
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/
> #_requires_and_buildrequires_with_standardized_names
>   this is optional though

Thanks, for the feedback. Updated

%changelog
* Wed Jan 20 2020 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 0.4.4-2
- Update to new macros (#1903509)

Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-wled.spec
SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-wled-0.4.4-2.fc33.src.rpm

Looks fine, APPROVED

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", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat
     License". 26 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/1903509-python-
     wled/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 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]: 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).
[?]: 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.
[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-wled-0.4.4-2.fc34.noarch.rpm
          python-wled-0.4.4-2.fc34.src.rpm
python3-wled.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US programmatically -> pro grammatically, pro-grammatically, programmatic ally
python-wled.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US programmatically -> pro grammatically, pro-grammatically, programmatic ally
python-wled.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Wed Jan 20 2020 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 0.4.4-2
python-wled.src: E: specfile-error error: %changelog not in descending chronological order
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
python3-wled.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US programmatically -> pro grammatically, pro-grammatically, programmatic ally
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/frenck/python-wled/archive/v0.4.4/wled-0.4.4.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 816f8b370820093e3ef565a415c81ff96ab20e971b6a981aa1603a0cdcbf8df2
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 816f8b370820093e3ef565a415c81ff96ab20e971b6a981aa1603a0cdcbf8df2


Requires
--------
python3-wled (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3.9dist(aiohttp)
    python3.9dist(backoff)
    python3.9dist(packaging)
    python3.9dist(yarl)



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



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1903509
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, C/C++, Perl, Haskell, PHP, fonts, R, Ocaml, Java
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Thanks a lot for the review.

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