I will take this review.

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

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

Issues
------
- The License field is wrong.  It should be MIT, not Apache-2.0.

- Note this message in the build log, since 2023-Oct-30 is only 6 weeks away.

/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/setuptools/config/setupcfg.py:293: _DeprecatedConfig: Deprecated config in `setup.cfg`
!!
        ********************************************************************************
        The license_file parameter is deprecated, use license_files instead.
        By 2023-Oct-30, you need to update your project and remove deprecated calls
        or your builds will no longer be supported.
        See https://setuptools.pypa.io/en/latest/userguide/declarative_config.html for details.
        ********************************************************************************
!!
  parsed = self.parsers.get(option_name, lambda x: x)(value)

- Remove the -t flag from %pyproject_buildrequires since this package does not
  test with tox

- I don't know how seriously we take the "American English" thing, but
  "normalisation" is the British English spelling.  Thanks to Benjamin Franklin,
  we Americans spell it with a z: "normalization".

===== 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
     License". 21 files have unknown license.
[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.
[!]: 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]: 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]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 1785 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: 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:
[-]: 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.
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-fingerprints-1.1.1-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
          python-fingerprints-1.1.1-1.fc40.src.rpm
================================================ rpmlint session starts ================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp8sjppemv')]
checks: 31, packages: 2

================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s =================




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/alephdata/fingerprints/archive/1.1.1/fingerprints-1.1.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 9184dd62a8f0c6c22396fdb5be57b3f308280e735bb93c105cc47e1e85b7a10b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9184dd62a8f0c6c22396fdb5be57b3f308280e735bb93c105cc47e1e85b7a10b


Requires
--------
python3-fingerprints (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (python3.12dist(normality) <= 3 with python3.12dist(normality) >= 2)
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
python3-fingerprints:
    python-fingerprints
    python3-fingerprints
    python3.12-fingerprints
    python3.12dist(fingerprints)
    python3dist(fingerprints)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2235064 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-eclipseo
Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: R, C/C++, Java, Haskell, Ruby, fonts, Perl, PHP, SugarActivity, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

- The License field is wrong.  It should be MIT, not Apache-2.0.

oops

- Note this message in the build log, since 2023-Oct-30 is only 6 weeks away

/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/setuptools/config/setupcfg.py:293: _DeprecatedConfig: Deprecated config in `setup.cfg`
!!
        ********************************************************************************
        The license_file parameter is deprecated, use license_files instead.
        By 2023-Oct-30, you need to update your project and remove deprecated calls
        or your builds will no longer be supported.
        See https://setuptools.pypa.io/en/latest/userguide/declarative_config.html for details.
        ********************************************************************************
!!
  parsed = self.parsers.get(option_name, lambda x: x)(value)

PR sent https://github.com/alephdata/fingerprints/pull/17

and added in the SPEC


- Remove the -t flag from %pyproject_buildrequires since this package does not
  test with tox

ok

- I don't know how seriously we take the "American English" thing, but
  "normalisation" is the British English spelling.  Thanks to Benjamin Franklin,
  we Americans spell it with a z: "normalization".

ok

Thnaks for the review, files updated in place.

Sorry about the delay.  The changes look good.  This package is APPROVED.

Thank you for the review, Jerry

https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/57224

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-fingerprints

FEDORA-2023-66aeac9237 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-66aeac9237

FEDORA-2023-c2ae805b07 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c2ae805b07

FEDORA-2023-dcbe5e0ae4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-dcbe5e0ae4

FEDORA-2023-66aeac9237 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-66aeac9237 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-66aeac9237

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

FEDORA-2023-dcbe5e0ae4 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-dcbe5e0ae4 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-dcbe5e0ae4

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

FEDORA-2023-c2ae805b07 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-c2ae805b07 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c2ae805b07

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

FEDORA-2023-66aeac9237 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2023-dcbe5e0ae4 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2023-c2ae805b07 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.