Python Packaging Guidelines state that the package SHOULD be available on PyPI. That's currently not the case because of a naming issue [1], but hopefully it will be resolved soon.
If not, I'm going to use "python-" prefix on PyPI.

[1] https://github.com/pypa/pypi-support/issues/1667

Spec sanity:

> %{?!python3_pkgversion:%global python3_pkgversion 3}

I know of no distribution that has %pyproject_* macros but does not define %python3_pkgversion. Why do you think this is needed in the spec file? I believe it should be removed, but maybe I don't have all the information.


> %global srcname specfile

(personal opinion) There is no good reason to define this macro. Consider not doing it. See https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/BEW5NUG2T5OWSIRB7KGCVJRBCSBJZE37/ search for "As does Zbyszek,"


> %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{srcname}}

This macro is deprecated and does nothing useful. It should be removed.


> %license LICENSE

The license file is already included in %{pyproject_files}.  It should be removed.

BTW this project looks interesting. Off-topic curiosity: How does this library handle %if-%else branches that spawn across multiple sections?

Thanks Miro.

(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #2)
> I know of no distribution that has %pyproject_* macros but does not define
> %python3_pkgversion. Why do you think this is needed in the spec file? I
> believe it should be removed, but maybe I don't have all the information.

This comes from a template generated by rpmdev-newspec, I left it there just to be safe. I'll remove it.

> (personal opinion) There is no good reason to define this macro. Consider
> not doing it. See
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/python-devel@lists.
> fedoraproject.org/message/BEW5NUG2T5OWSIRB7KGCVJRBCSBJZE37/ search for "As
> does Zbyszek,"
 
Ok, makes sense.

rpmdev-newspec and pyproject macros don't play along well. I recommend using https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_empty_spec_file and adapting. Alternatively, if you feel experimental, https://github.com/befeleme/pyp2spec/

(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #3)
> BTW this project looks interesting. Off-topic curiosity: How does this
> library handle %if-%else branches that spawn across multiple sections?

Currently, it doesn't handle conditions at all, it simply ignores them. It's a naive approach, but it should work fine with the majority of spec files.

Do you have any examples of spec files that are like that? If would be good to at least document the cases this library is not able to handle.

Updated.

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/nforro/python-specfile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/03512930-python-specfile/python-specfile.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/nforro/python-specfile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/03512930-python-specfile/python-specfile-0.1.0-1.fc37.src.rpm

Specfile looks sane. Running Fedora-Review. pro-tip: When using Copr to submit new packages, you can enable automatic Fedora-Review to make this much simpler for the reviewer.

> Do you have any examples of spec files that are like that? If would be good
> to at least document the cases this library is not able to handle.

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python3.10/blob/rawhide/f/python3.10.spec (I am really sorry :D)

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

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

This package is APPROVED.


===== 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".
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[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]: 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]: 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[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
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== 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.
[?]: 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.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[?]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.2.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 3

 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.5 s 



Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
<mock-chroot> sh-5.1$ rpmlint -i python3-specfile
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.2.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 1

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



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/packit/specfile/archive/0.1.0/specfile-0.1.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : fb7eed228b4fc01e7838695188b4ea12af89e46758af2315456acd3f510f777f
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fb7eed228b4fc01e7838695188b4ea12af89e46758af2315456acd3f510f777f


Requires
--------
python3-specfile (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3.10dist(arrow)
    python3.10dist(rpm)
    python3.10dist(setuptools)



Provides
--------
python3-specfile:
    python-specfile
    python3-specfile
    python3.10-specfile
    python3.10dist(specfile)
    python3dist(specfile)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.0 (fed5495) last change: 2019-03-17
Command line :try-fedora-review -b 2054599 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Haskell, fonts, Ocaml, Java, Ruby, SugarActivity, PHP, R, Perl, C/C++
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #8)
> Specfile looks sane. Running Fedora-Review. pro-tip: When using Copr to
> submit new packages, you can enable automatic Fedora-Review to make this
> much simpler for the reviewer.

Hm, I enabled "Run fedora-review tool for packages in this project", but I didn't realize I should probably link the result here:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/nforro/python-specfile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/03512930-python-specfile/fedora-review/review.txt

Thanks for the review!

> Requires
> --------
> python3-specfile (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>     python(abi)
>     python3.10dist(arrow)
>     python3.10dist(rpm)
>     python3.10dist(setuptools)

The setuptools dependency surprised me, I've opened https://github.com/packit/specfile/pull/9

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-specfile

FEDORA-2022-53bf2b5a0c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-53bf2b5a0c

FEDORA-2022-53bf2b5a0c has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-53bf2b5a0c \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-53bf2b5a0c

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

FEDORA-2022-53bf2b5a0c has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.