This is not a review, but just some preliminary notes.

-----

Please read https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ to understand Python packaging practices in Fedora. It looks like you may not have done so. Please also see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections.

You can use the fedora-review command-line tool and consult https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/ to see some of the things people will be checking for when reviewing your package.

-----

> %define version 0.4.1
> %define release 1

> Version: %{version}
> Release: %{release}

Do not do this. Do:

> Version: 0.4.1
> Release: 1%{?dist}

Note that the version and release macros are defined for you this way. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/DistTag/.

-----

> Prefix: %{_prefix}

Remove this. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_relocatable_packages.

-----

> Name: python3-proton-client

This violates https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_naming.

The base package should be python-%{unmangled_name}, and you should have

> %package -n python3-%{unmangled_name}

> %files -n python3-%{unmangled_name}

as the built package.

Note that this means you will have to submit a new review ticket with the correct name.

-----

> Requires: python3-requests
> Requires: python3-pyOpenSSL
> Requires: python3-bcrypt
> Requires: python3-gnupg

> %{?python_disable_dependency_generator}

You are *allowed* to opt out of automatic dependency generation (https://github.com/ProtonMail/proton-python-client). But since the upstream setup.py provides the necessary metadata, why would you want to?

-----

> Group: ProtonVPN

> Vendor: Proton Technologies AG <contact>

> BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{unmangled_name}-%{version}-%{release}-buildroot

> %clean
> rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

> %defattr(-,root,root)

All of these either MUST NOT or SHOULD NOT be present (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_permissions).

-----

> %setup -q -n %{unmangled_name}-%{version} -n %{unmangled_name}-%{version}

should be

> %setup -q -n %{unmangled_name}-%{version}

-----

> %build
> %{python3} setup.py build

> %install
> %{python3} setup.py install --single-version-externally-managed -O1 --root=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT --record=INSTALLED_FILES

Why not just this? When you don’t use the standard macros, it’s hard to tell at a glance whether you’re trying to do something unusual.

> %build
> %py3_build

> %install
> %py3_install

-----

The upstream repository has tests, so you should run them (at least, any tests that do not require network access).

It also looks like you submitted an email address rather than a Fedora Account System username. An FAS username is required for a successful review to be processed.

Please consider either preparing an updated submission that more closely follows Fedora packaging guidelines, or closing this as NOTABUG.

Since I set NEEDINFO, this issue should be automatically closed if there is no response in one month plus one week (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Package_review_policy/#submitter_not_responding).

Hey @code thanks for the heads up and for the links to the documentation, it helped a lot in understanding what I did wrong. I've addressed most of your comments though I still have some questions if you don't mind answering. 

> %files -n python3-%{unmangled_name}

1. So does this mean that the line would look like this %files -f INSTALLED_FILES -n python3-%{unmangled_name} or %files just -n python3-%{unmangled_name} ?

2. "It also looks like you submitted an email address rather than a Fedora Account System username. An FAS username is required for a successful review to be processed.", I did create this after logging in with FAS, am I supposed to do anything different ?

3. "Note that this means you will have to submit a new review ticket with the correct name." So this basically means that I will have to close this one and create a new one, correct ?

> 1. So does this mean that the line would look like this %files -f INSTALLED_FILES -n python3-%{unmangled_name} or %files just -n python3-%{unmangled_name} ?

Yes, just: %files -n python3-%{unmangled_name}

Although you can choose (for now) whether to package under the “new” Python guidelines (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/) using pyproject-rpm-macros, or the “old” ones (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python_201x/). If you use the new guidelines, which I would recommend, you’ll end up with: %files -n python3-%{unmangled_name} -f %{pyproject_files}

> 2. "It also looks like you submitted an email address rather than a Fedora Account System username. An FAS username is required for a successful review to be processed.", I did create this after logging in with FAS, am I supposed to do anything different ?

I’m referring to the text in the description for this issue: “Fedora Account System Username: acrandom”

That needs to be your FAS username, not an email. For example, I’m https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/user/music/, so I would put “music” there.

> 3. "Note that this means you will have to submit a new review ticket with the correct name." So this basically means that I will have to close this one and create a new one, correct ?

I think so. It might be possible to change the issue title to contain the correct package name (“python-proton-client”), and put the correct FAS username in a “Fedora Account System Username: WHOMEVER” line in a new comment. You would learn if that worked after the package was approved and you tried to request a dist-git repository. Worst case, you would have to close this bug and re-open a new one then, and ask your reviewer to re-approve using the new issue. That happens sometimes.

Still, if it were me, I would go ahead and close this issue and create a new one instead of trying to fix this one.

I think your FAS username is calexandru2018.

Will create a new package with a new name and all major fixes to the .spec file.