I think it's good to refer to your previous (approved) version here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531544
(just for convenience of the reader)

Did you already report the incorrect-fsf-address issue upstream? (I could not find that in your previous review request).

There's no proper upstream unfortunately, but Satchmo needs it and has a "mirror" for it and this is what this package has.

I can write a patch for the new address if needed.

I believe this rpmlint rule was mostly intended to urge us packagers to motivate upstream authors to do the correct thing here.
Therefore I don't think adding a patch is very useful in case there is no active upstream developer.

Not sure why this is still sitting here after a year.  The original spec could use some cleanup for modern packaging guidelines (no BuildRoot:, buildroot cleaning in %install, or %defattr).  In addition, the spec for this package needs an update as the original package is at a different release.  Finally, I think the Obsoletes: is wrong, because it wouldn't obsolete the 1.2-3 release.  It should have been:
  Obsoletes:      python-trml2pdf < 1.2-4
but of course that would need changing now.

I have fixed the SPEC. The new version is available at:
 - https://github.com/ciupicri/rpmbuild/blob/rename-egg/SPECS/python-trml2pdf12.spec
 - https://sites.google.com/site/cristianciupitu/python-trml2pdf12-1.2-5.fc18.src.rpm

$ koji build --scratch rawhide python-trml2pdf12-1.2-5.fc18.src.rpm
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5410611

$ rpmlint SPECS/python-trml2pdf12.spec 
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint SRPMS/python-trml2pdf12-1.2-5.fc18.src.rpm 
python-trml2pdf12.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US compat -> compact, combat, cowpat
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

$ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/python-trml2pdf-1.2-2.fc18.noarch.rpm 
python-trml2pdf.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/python-trml2pdf-1.2/LICENSE.txt
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.

The spec file link is not usable. Please use a location which is directly downloadable, such as your Fedorapeople webspace, Dropbox or anything else. Or at least, the raw file link from GitHub:
https://raw.github.com/ciupicri/rpmbuild/rename-egg/SPECS/python-trml2pdf12.spec

The python-imaging package is actually deprecated, it is only provided virtually by python-pillow (and python3-pillow appropriately). Make sure your package works with Pillow. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Pillow for more information. There's an example patch which I've got last year for one of my packages (bug #895783).

Apart from Mario's comment (nice to see you are still involved Mario) the review tool called like this:
   /bin/fedora-review -b 821455 -m fedora-18-x86_64 -r
runs fine. This way it uses the spec file from the srpm package.

However, it also detects that the source code in your package differs from upstream. When checked manually it appears to be a similar problem, i.e. http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/python-modules/packages/python-trml2pdf/trunk/debian/trml2pdf.1 does not download the man page itself, but only an html file that points to the man page.
The actual link is:
http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/python-modules/packages/python-trml2pdf/trunk/debian/trml2pdf.1?revision=2936&view=co

This is not a blocking issue for reviewing, but still rather awkward, since it causes unneeded extra work for the reviewer. Next time please make sure the url's point to the actual files.

Once you fixed the pillow issue, I'll be happy to do the review.

I've fixed the URL for Source1, thanks for telling me about it.
I'll do the Pillow thing later.
---
Koji build - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5523995

Hi Christian,

I'm sorry for the delay. Today I looked  again at your review request, and still have some problems.

The command:
  fedora-review -b 821455 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
now indeed finds the spec file and runs, but it ends with this error:

chmod: cannot access '/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python-trml2pdf12-1.2-5.fc21.x\
86_64//usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/TRML2PDF-1.0-py2.7.egg/trml2pdf/t
rml2pdf.py': Not a directory

which is correct, because this is a file not a directory:
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python-trml2\
pdf12-1.2-5.fc21.x86_64/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/TRML2PDF-1.0-py2.7.egg

this egg file in fact is a zip file that does contain trml2pdf/trml2pdf.py

On the other hand, when using F18 or F19 as target the review tool seems to run to completion:
   fedora-review -b 821455 -m fedora-18-x86_64
   fedora-review -b 821455 -m fedora-19-x86_64
both run fine.

It seems to me the default behaviour of easy_install has changed in rawhide. In F18 and F19 the egg file is automatically extracted/unzipped, but in rawhide this no longer happens. Maybe adding the easy_install commandline option --always-unzip could help here?

Anyway, it is not really clear to me why you wish to use the easy_install tool to do the build and installation. Just plainly using the setup script seems easier to me (and probably would not have this issue).

Just adding
   %{__python} setup.py build
to the %build section, and
   %{__python} setup.py install --skip-build --root %{buildroot}
to the %install section of the spec file should do the trick.

Apart from this, the review tool complains that the spec file you provide differs from the spec file included in the srpm. Please fix this.

The rpmlint results reported by the review tool are:
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python-trml2pdf12-1.2-5.fc19.noarch.rpm
          python-trml2pdf12-1.2-5.fc19.src.rpm
python-trml2pdf12.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US compat -> compact, combat, cowpat
python-trml2pdf12.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/python-trml2pdf12-1.2/LICENSE.txt
python-trml2pdf12.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US compat -> compact, combat, cowpat
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.

so these are still the same.

I fixed that issue. Thanks for the tip!

The new package is for Fedora 20 and newer.

SPEC: https://raw.github.com/ciupicri/rpmbuild/python-trml2pdf12/SPECS/python-trml2pdf12.spec

SRC.RPM: http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9169/6049169/python-trml2pdf12-1.2-10.fc20.src.rpm

Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6049168

Scratch build for rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6049232

Thanks for this new version, here is my review:

Issues:
=======

[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
The two macro types $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{python_sitelib} are mixed in your
spec file. Please update it to use a single style, i.e. replace
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT by %{buildroot} as is detailed here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS

(note that this is not specified correctly in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros which gives several
wrong mixed style examples)

[!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
your use of %{__python} is deprecated. This should be replaced by %{__python2}.
see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros

Note: the word compatibilitxy in the %description section seems a typo to
me and should be compatibility I think.

The rpmlint issues have been discussed above in this bugreport and are no blocking issue.

The remark "Unknown or generated" in the license check refers to the string LGPL in the setup.py file. Fedora prefers to use LGPLv2+ in stead, but I feel this only applies to the spec file, so you don't need to patch the upstream sources to fix this.

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

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

===== 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:
     "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or
     generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
     in /home/user_to_make_rpms/reviews/821455.python-trml2pdf12/821455
     -python-trml2pdf12/licensecheck.txt
[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
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
     two different macro styles are mixed.
[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 40960 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
     I manually checked the Guidelines, and the package seems compliant.
[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 %doc.
[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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[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]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
     your use of %{__python} is deprecated. This should be replaced by
     %{__python2}.
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[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.
     not applicable since this is an old version packaged for compatibility
     reasons
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python-trml2pdf12-1.2-10.fc21.noarch.rpm
          python-trml2pdf12-1.2-10.fc21.src.rpm
python-trml2pdf12.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US compatibilitxy -> compatibility, comparability
python-trml2pdf12.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/python-trml2pdf12/LICENSE.txt
python-trml2pdf12.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US compatibilitxy -> compatibility, comparability
python-trml2pdf12.src: W: strange-permission trml2pdf.1 0444L
python-trml2pdf12.src: W: strange-permission trml2pdf-1.2.tar.gz 0444L
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint python-trml2pdf12
python-trml2pdf12.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US compatibilitxy -> compatibility, comparability
python-trml2pdf12.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/python-trml2pdf12/LICENSE.txt
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
python-trml2pdf12 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python
    python(abi)
    python-imaging
    python-reportlab



Provides
--------
python-trml2pdf12:
    python-trml2pdf
    python-trml2pdf12



Source checksums
----------------
http://www.satchmoproject.com/snapshots/trml2pdf-1.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 0fd58e2483d1708a5c1479d3d2a947c441dd698da01669383d062d2eb116a9e3
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0fd58e2483d1708a5c1479d3d2a947c441dd698da01669383d062d2eb116a9e3
http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/python-modules/packages/python-trml2pdf/trunk/debian/trml2pdf.1?revision=2936&view=co#/trml2pdf.1 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : a6830f83f6d58477a614aafd932a815c23220c251b9da67fb3f5ad746c89a133
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a6830f83f6d58477a614aafd932a815c23220c251b9da67fb3f5ad746c89a133


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30
Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 821455 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG

I've fixed the issues.

Please note, that this package is a rename, so this section should be checked:

[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.

Maybe I should add a comment in the SPEC or something.

SPEC: https://raw.github.com/ciupicri/rpmbuild/python-trml2pdf12/SPECS/python-trml2pdf12.spec

SRC.RPM: http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/4580/6054580/python-trml2pdf12-1.2-13.fc20.src.rpm

Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6054579

Thanks for pointing out the renaming issue, which obviously I overlooked in the above review, even though we discussed it before. Sorry about that.

The most recent version in rawhide of the python-trml2pdf package is 1.2.9.
(see https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/python-trml2pdf)
As is detailed in https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/171#comment:5 this package will be renamed to python-trml2pdf12 without changing it's content, to allow a possible creation of a subpackage by the openERP maintainer.
Therefore it should provide proper Obsoletes and Provides in the spec file.

Looking at the lines:
Provides:       python-trml2pdf = %{version}-%{release}
Obsoletes:      python-trml2pdf <= 1.2-9

and reading the rules in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages this seems correct to me.

Retesting the new srpm in mock the results seem just fine to me. Rerunning the fedora-review tool gives similar results to the review above. The rpmlint results do no longer complain about the spelling issue as expected:

Checking: python-trml2pdf12-1.2-13.fc21.noarch.rpm
          python-trml2pdf12-1.2-13.fc21.src.rpm
python-trml2pdf12.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/python-trml2pdf12/LICENSE.txt
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.

This error was discussed as well above, and since there is no upstream for this old source code I will not ask you to patch this address.

So looking at all this, I am happy with the result and this package is APPROVED.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: python-trml2pdf12
Short Description: Tiny RML2PDF is a tool to easily create PDF documents without programming
Owners: ciupicri
Branches: f20
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

python-trml2pdf12-1.2-13.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-trml2pdf12-1.2-13.fc20

python-trml2pdf12-1.2-13.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.

python-trml2pdf12-1.2-13.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.