Build fails:
ERROR] Plugin org.sonatype.plugins:sisu-maven-plugin:1.1 or one of its dependencies could not be resolved: Cannot access central (http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2) in offline mode and the artifact org.sonatype.plugins:sisu-maven-plugin:jar:1.1 has not been downloaded from it before. -> [Help 1]

sisu-maven-plugin was retired (2013-11-14). please remove

Spec URL: http://galileo.fedorapeople.org/takari-local-repository/0.10.2-2/takari-local-repository.spec
SRPM URL: http://galileo.fedorapeople.org/takari-local-repository/0.10.2-2/takari-local-repository-0.10.2-2.fc21.src.rpm

(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #1)
> Build fails:
> ERROR] Plugin org.sonatype.plugins:sisu-maven-plugin:1.1 or one of its
> dependencies could not be resolved: Cannot access central
> (http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2) in offline mode and the artifact
> org.sonatype.plugins:sisu-maven-plugin:jar:1.1 has not been downloaded from
> it before. -> [Help 1]
> 
> sisu-maven-plugin was retired (2013-11-14). please remove

Sorry about that...not sure how that managed to pass my local mock environment. :-/

(In reply to Gerard Ryan from comment #3)
> Sorry about that...not sure how that managed to pass my local mock
> environment. :-/

To be clear, that issue should be solved in the spec/srpm in comment #2

Thanks for your time!

should be obsolete tesla-concurrent-localrepo ... ?

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

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


Issues:
=======
- This seems like a Java package, please install fedora-review-plugin-java to
  get additional checks


===== 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 %doc.
[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". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/gil/1101016-takari-local-
     repository/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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 20480 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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]: 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

Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build

===== 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in takari-
     local-repository-javadoc
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[!]: 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]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: takari-local-repository-0.10.2-2.fc21.noarch.rpm
          takari-local-repository-javadoc-0.10.2-2.fc21.noarch.rpm
          takari-local-repository-0.10.2-2.fc21.src.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint takari-local-repository-javadoc takari-local-repository
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
takari-local-repository-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    jpackage-utils

takari-local-repository (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java-headless
    jpackage-utils
    mvn(edu.umd.cs:multithreadedtc)



Provides
--------
takari-local-repository-javadoc:
    takari-local-repository-javadoc

takari-local-repository:
    mvn(io.takari.aether:takari-local-repository)
    takari-local-repository



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/takari/takari-local-repository/archive/d7f7d96880d25326195d8d44e64198b494e925a0/takari-local-repository-0.10.2-d7f7d96.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 0333b47be9a9447d6d3cda31c70f3efcbf322a42dc4cbf535c77e9e9a4aab607
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0333b47be9a9447d6d3cda31c70f3efcbf322a42dc4cbf535c77e9e9a4aab607


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1101016 -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -L /home/gil/deps
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java
Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

Built with local dependencies:
    /home/gil/deps/takari-filemanager-0.8.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm

Please, open a bug for include license file to upstream
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.


[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Please, can you add a comment which explain why testing is disabled?

(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #5)
> should be obsolete tesla-concurrent-localrepo ... ?

I'm not 100% sure that it needs to in this case, does it? I'm not so familiar with package renaming. I can't think of any situation where these would clash, and I'll be retiring/blocking tesla-concurrent-localrepo once this is available in the repos. Actually obseleting tesla-concurrent-localrepo could cause issues, since this doesn't provide the same artifact, or classes on the same namespace. Does that make sense, or should I still obselete?

(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #7)
> Please, open a bug for include license file to upstream

That has been open as a github PR since the last package review.

> 
> [!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
> Please, can you add a comment which explain why testing is disabled?

Tests are disabled because of newer aether api in Fedora than these tests expect. I'll add the comment before importing.

Thanks a lot for your reviews this evening gil! I'll see if I can find some time to do some for you this week, or soon at least! :)

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: takari-local-repository
Short Description: Takari :: Local Repository
Owners: galileo
InitialCC: java-sig

(In reply to Gerard Ryan from comment #8)
> (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #5)
> > should be obsolete tesla-concurrent-localrepo ... ?
> 
> I'm not 100% sure that it needs to in this case, does it? I'm not so
> familiar with package renaming. I can't think of any situation where these
> would clash, and I'll be retiring/blocking tesla-concurrent-localrepo once
> this is available in the repos. Actually obseleting
> tesla-concurrent-localrepo could cause issues, since this doesn't provide
> the same artifact, or classes on the same namespace. Does that make sense,
> or should I still obselete?

At least obsoletes should be included. Otherwise people updating from older rawhide will be left with the old package.  (Blocking the package in Koji doesn't cause it to be removed from installed systems during update, but obsoletion does.)

Provides are not required if you migrate all dependant packages to use the new name (in this case I guess it's just M2E using this package).

Ah yes, I didn't think about it like this. I'll add obseletes before import. Thanks!

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Built in rawhide, thanks folks! :)