Bug 789614

I'll do this one.

Initial comments:
* Latest mina release is 2.0.4. Please update to it before the official review.
* Requires (post/postun) on jpackage-utils are not needed.
* Javadoc subpackage misses requires on jpackage-utils but installs in _javadocdir which is owned by jpackage-utils.
* Apache projects ship source tarballs no need to create it manually, just look at http://mina.apache.org/downloads.html
* javadoc subpackage is independant but LICENSE.txt is not installed with it (%doc LICENSE.txt)

Once these issues are fixed official review will follow.

Made the changes pointed out in comment 2. The updated spec and SRPM are available here:

Spec URL:

http://www.xente.mundo-r.com/304027W0001/rpms/apache-mina.spec

SRPM URL:

http://www.xente.mundo-r.com/304027W0001/rpms/apache-mina-2.0.4-1.fc17.src.rpm

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

Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated



==== Generic ====
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
     least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
     Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST 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]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.

rpmlint apache-mina-javadoc-2.0.4-1.fc18.noarch.rpm

apache-mina-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.


rpmlint apache-mina-2.0.4-1.fc18.src.rpm

apache-mina.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalability -> availability, sociability, implacability
apache-mina.src: W: invalid-url Source0: apache-mina-2.0.4-src.tar.gz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.


rpmlint apache-mina-2.0.4-1.fc18.noarch.rpm

apache-mina.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalability -> availability, sociability, implacability
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.


[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
     /usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
     --requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
     upstream.
[-]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.


==== Java ====
[-]: MUST If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
     removed prior to building
[x]: MUST Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: MUST Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
     subpackage
[x]: MUST Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: MUST Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version}
     symlink)
[x]: SHOULD Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x]: SHOULD Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)


==== Maven ====
[x]: MUST Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call
     Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct
[x]: MUST Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: MUST Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
     jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: MUST If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps)
     even when building with ant
[-]: MUST If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed
     in a comment
     Note: Some comment is used before mvn-rpmbuild command. Please verify it
     explains use of -Dmaven.test.skip
[x]: MUST Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: MUST Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms

Issues:
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.

rpmlint apache-mina-2.0.4-1.fc18.src.rpm

apache-mina.src: W: invalid-url Source0: apache-mina-2.0.4-src.tar.gz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
You should use the link directly aka Source0: http://mina.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/mina/%{version}/apache-mina-%{version}-src.tar.gz 
is the correct thing to have instead of the current commented wget line and Source0

Dropping needsponsor as you have been sponsored through another review.

Fixed Source0, but the spelling warning will remain. The updated spec and SRPM are here:

http://jhernand.fedorapeople.org/rpms/apache-mina/2

Looks good.

APPROVED.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: apache-mina
Short Description: Apache MINA
Owners: jhernand

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: apache-mina
New Branches: f17
Owners: jhernand

Git done (by process-git-requests).

This builds fine on f16, could be get a branch there too please?

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: apache-mina
New Branches: f16
Owners: jhernand

Git done (by process-git-requests).

apache-mina-2.0.4-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/apache-mina-2.0.4-2.fc16

apache-mina-2.0.4-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.