This package built on koji:  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7427397

any plan to provide python3 subpackage?

If there is one I'd loved to, but I'm not sure the code is compatible

Review:
+ mock build is successful for f22.

- rpmlint output on rpms gave
python-flask-xml-rpc.src: E: invalid-spec-name
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.

=> python-Flask-XML-RPC.spec should be python-flask-xml-rpc.spec
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name

+ Source verified with upstream as (sha256sum)
srpm tarball     :4adc7482240a916e8c2205cba38b4bd6e648692d189419686a3116768fa48ab7
upstream tarball :4adc7482240a916e8c2205cba38b4bd6e648692d189419686a3116768fa48ab7

+ License "MIT" is valid

- License text is not included in package

=>  see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text which suggests MIT license package needs license text also. Ask upstream to provide license text

- Package must own all directories that it creates.
 
=> Directory /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/flaskext not owned

+ rest looks following packaging guidelines.

> => python-Flask-XML-RPC.spec should be python-flask-xml-rpc.spec
>  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name

Adjusted.

> - License text is not included in package
> =>  see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
> which suggests MIT license package needs license text also.
> Ask upstream to provide license text

This has been done already: https://bitbucket.org/leafstorm/flask-xml-rpc/pull-request/1/
(Thus the commented LICENSE in the %files section)

> => Directory /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/flaskext not owned

That one is used by every flask extension.
Adjusted.

Spec URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs//python-Flask-XML-RPC.spec
SRPM URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs//python-flask-xml-rpc-0.1.2-2.fc20.src.rpm

I wonder why no package or python-flask not owning /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/flaskext. Maybe that can be worked on later on.

I also assume above spec link is wrongly pasted.

APPROVED above srpm.

Sorry yes, wrong copy paste, the latest one is at: https://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs//python-flask-xml-rpc.spec

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: python-flask-xml-rpc
Short Description: Adds support for creating XML-RPC APIs to Flask
Upstream URL: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/Flask-XML-RPC
Owners: pingou
Branches: master, f21, epel7
InitialCC: group::fedora-infra

Wrong group

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: python-flask-xml-rpc
Short Description: Adds support for creating XML-RPC APIs to Flask
Upstream URL: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/Flask-XML-RPC
Owners: pingou
Branches: master, f21, epel7
InitialCC: group::infra-sig

Pierre,
   we don't specify master or devel branch its created automatically. Also, If I am not wrong then we still use directly group name in InitialCC and not write group with prefix as "group::".

and you forgot to raise fedora-cvs? flag.

Thanks for the flag, but regarding group:: it's a shiny new things from pkgdb2 (in testing), I'm curious to see how the script processing the requests handles it.

Git done (by process-git-requests).

See if the group::thing works.  It warned me that it's not a valid fas
account, so if it does work we'll need to patch the script to account for
that.

group::infra-sig got the watch* acls just fine on pkgdb2 it looks like:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python-flask-xml-rpc/

I'll import the srpm and see if the mailing list gets the notification

And the list does get the notifications, cool! :)