Bug 494238

OK : rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review.[1]  Just for kicks here is the output from rpmlint on the spec file itself: 
[ke4qqq@nalleyt61 SPECS]$ rpmlint pyrrd.spec 
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
OK:: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines .  Ships with BSD license. 
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK: 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 must be included in %doc.
OK: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. 
OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
From my download from upstream:
[ke4qqq@nalleyt61 t2]$ md5sum PyRRD-0.0.7.tar.gz 
31cfb812d3a4a5ca11e619ce9dc8f6b4  PyRRD-0.0.7.tar.gz

From the SRPM: 
[ke4qqq@nalleyt61 SOURCES]$ md5sum PyRRD-0.0.7.tar.gz 
31cfb812d3a4a5ca11e619ce9dc8f6b4  PyRRD-0.0.7.tar.gz


OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. (Build log from koji above shows successful build as well as building on reviewers x86_64 laptop successfully.)  
N/A: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line.
OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
N/A: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
N/A: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. 
N/A: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory.
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings.
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line.
OK: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [15]
OK: Each package must consistently use macros.
While macros are used in several places, case makes this impossible in some. 

Upstream appears to have not decided whether to use PyRRD or pyrrd and uses both in some cases. While the package guidelines do not require that you adopt one case or another, one does wonder whether it would be easier in the spec file to have adopted the PyRRD style. As said earlier though this is left to the packagers discretion: 
https://fedoraproject.com/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Case_Sensitivity


OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
N/A: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). 
OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. 
N/A: Header files must be in a -devel package.
N/A: Static libraries must be in a -static package. 
N/A: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability).
N/A: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package.
N/A: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} 
N/A: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.
N/A: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. 
OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time.
OK: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.


I ran some of the sample scripts shipped and it generates the rrd files and associated pngs as expected. 

Nothing seen as a blocker in this package, thus approved.

The import name of the module is pyrrd, so I will leave the package name untouched.

https://fedoraproject.com/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28python_modules.29 says 'When in doubt, use the name of the module that you type to import it in a script.'

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name:  pyrrd
Short Description:  A Pure Python Wrapper for RRDTool
Owners: fab
Branches: F-9 F-10
InitialCC:

By the way, thanks for the review David.

cvs done.

pyrrd-0.0.7-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pyrrd-0.0.7-1.fc10

pyrrd-0.0.7-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pyrrd-0.0.7-1.fc9

pyrrd-0.0.7-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing-newkey update pyrrd'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-3436

pyrrd-0.0.7-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update pyrrd'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-3489

pyrrd-0.0.7-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

pyrrd-0.0.7-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

pyrrd-0.1.0-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-8088

pyrrd-0.1.0-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.\nIf you want to test the update, you can install it with \n su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update pyrrd'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-8088

pyrrd-0.1.0-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.