Also a koji build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=17560793

You should post link to raw spec file (this is what tooling e.g. fedora-rawhide expect). I.e. it should be:

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/abrt/abrt-server-info-page/master/abrt-server-info-page.spec
SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mmarusak/abrt-server-info-page/fedora-25-x86_64/00506842-abrt-server-info-page/abrt-server-info-page-1.1-1.git.27.b08ab63.fc25.src.rpm

The referenced SRPM was build using tito --test. You should not use that for Fedora or for review.


===== 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.
[-]: 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
     upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
     licenses manually.
[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.
[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]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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 use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[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 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
     Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?)
[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
      
===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
     Note: Package contains font files
[!]: 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.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[x]: 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]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Issues:
Please add BR python-devel
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires

build package without --test

if possible (and I am sure that it is possible) please add LICENSE file in upstream and add it to %files using %license macro.

Thanks for your review.

I addressed mentioned issues and fixed them. New specfile and source rpm are now:

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/abrt/abrt-server-info-page/master/abrt-server-info-page.spec
SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mmarusak/abrt-server-info-page/fedora-25-x86_64/00507563-abrt-server-info-page/abrt-server-info-page-1.2-1.fc25.src.rpm

You are not sponsor so you were supposed to block FE-NEEDSPONSOR

APPROVED

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/abrt-server-info-page

abrt-server-info-page-1.2-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-0e30aaf98c

abrt-server-info-page-1.2-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-e81531b5b3

abrt-server-info-page-1.2-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-e81531b5b3

abrt-server-info-page-1.2-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-0e30aaf98c

abrt-server-info-page-1.2-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

abrt-server-info-page-1.2-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.