Hi Piotr, are you still interested in packaging this?

Yes

I don't see you in the packager group in FAS, that means you need a sponsor. I'm not a sponsor, therefore I cannot do the review.

Please read:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers

Few other items:
- the specfile seems to be copied from RHEL, you'll need to clean it up a lot and make sure it conforms to current Fedora packaging guidelines
- please post the specfile/srpm somewhere where it can be downloaded directly. your current links cannot be processed by automated tools, such as fedora-review
- there seems to be more recent upstream version available

(In reply to Michael Simacek from comment #3)
> I don't see you in the packager group in FAS, that means you need a sponsor.
> I'm not a sponsor, therefore I cannot do the review.

Michael, you can do the review and I will sponsor Piotr.

Hi Piotr,

As mentioned in comment#3 it's recommended to provide the spec and sprm in it can be downloaded directly with tools like wget. The Source is pointing to Version 1.0.8 which is not available in http://resources.ovirt.org/pub/ovirt-3.5-snapshot/src/vdsm-jsonrpc-java/. At this point, please update the spec to the lastest ovirt-3.6 bits.

Every change in spec, please update Release and reflect in changelog

Encourage upstream to add a copy of license (COPYING) and use %license macro in the spec.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines

Probably maven-surefire-provider-junit4 should be replaced by 
maven-surefire-provider-junit

Looks like you will need BuildRequires: gcc
$ rpmbuild -ba vdsm-jsonrpc-java.spec
configure: error: no acceptable C compiler found in $PATH
See `config.log' for more details.
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.DBtEbl (%build)

A good recommendation is refresh your spec and re-test it using fedora-review tool, a simple example:
$ fedora-review --rpm-spec -n vdsm-jsonrpc-java-1.0.8-1.XX.src.rpm

Hi Piotr,

I see you updated the package. Let's start with the below, please also consider the previous comments.

- Point the spec and srpm to a different url, so it can easily downloaded by
  wget or similar tool. 

- Source0 is not correct, the last bits seems to be 1.1.6
  http://resources.ovirt.org/pub/ovirt-3.6-snapshot/src/vdsm-jsonrpc-java/vdsm-jsonrpc-java-1.1.5.tar.gz

- Remove non needed BuildRoot tag
  BuildRoot:      %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Java_review_template 
  (Buildroot definition is not present)

- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
  Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/java/vdsm-jsonrpc-java
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles

- For subpackage that requires the main package, please use: 
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package

- This one below, is it really needed?
  %if 0%{?_use_repolib:1}
  rm -rf "%{buildroot}"
  %endif

- some rpmlint issues:
  vdsm-jsonrpc-java.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C oVirt JsonRpc java client (vdsm-jsonrpc-java)
  vdsm-jsonrpc-java.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://resources.ovirt.org/pub/ovirt-3.6-snapshot/src/vdsm-jsonrpc-java/vdsm-jsonrpc-java-1.1.5.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found

- Please consider run fedora-review tool with fedora-review-plugin-java plugin, it will help during your review.

Also, please also double check if vdsm-jsonrpc-java spec should keep the EL6 support, looks like the current vdsm only supports EL7 in current days.

El6 is supported as well and we build it every time there is change in the code within this package.

(In reply to Douglas Schilling Landgraf from comment #6)
> Hi Piotr,
> 
> I see you updated the package. Let's start with the below, please also
> consider the previous comments.
> 
> - Point the spec and srpm to a different url, so it can easily downloaded by
>   wget or similar tool. 
> 
> - Source0 is not correct, the last bits seems to be 1.1.6
>  
> http://resources.ovirt.org/pub/ovirt-3.6-snapshot/src/vdsm-jsonrpc-java/vdsm-
> jsonrpc-java-1.1.5.tar.gz
> 

Updated

> - Remove non needed BuildRoot tag
>   BuildRoot:      %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u}
> -n)
>   https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Java_review_template 
>   (Buildroot definition is not present)
> 

We have BuildRoot in line #52

> - Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
>   Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/java/vdsm-jsonrpc-java
>   See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles
> 

Can you point me to the lines? I do not see it.

> - For subpackage that requires the main package, please use: 
>   https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
> 

There are 3 packages:
- with code
- with java-doc
- with src

so I think there is no need to declare dependencies

> - This one below, is it really needed?
>   %if 0%{?_use_repolib:1}
>   rm -rf "%{buildroot}"
>   %endif
> 
> - some rpmlint issues:
>   vdsm-jsonrpc-java.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C oVirt JsonRpc java
> client (vdsm-jsonrpc-java)
>   vdsm-jsonrpc-java.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
> http://resources.ovirt.org/pub/ovirt-3.6-snapshot/src/vdsm-jsonrpc-java/vdsm-
> jsonrpc-java-1.1.5.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found
> 

Fixed

> - Please consider run fedora-review tool with fedora-review-plugin-java
> plugin, it will help during your review.

New version uploaded.

Piotr, I am reseting the assignee at this moment, if you are still interested in this package please update the spec so other person might continue from here.

The spec was updated long time ago and still waiting on review.

Piotr, I still can't see the updated version. Are you sure that SRPM and spec URLs are up-to-date?

I updated the spec as you can see on 2015-12-16. The package is under constant development so I would need to check whether there were any changes.

Will check and let you know.

I only see the comment saying that you updated it, but not the updated specfile.

I'd like to note that while Fedora and RHEL based products use RPM specfiles, their usage and guidelines can differ a lot. I've examined the old specfile linked in the original description and there are many problems. I'd strongly suggest creating a new specfile from scratch using current guidelines and documentation, as that will actually be less work for both you and the reviewer.

Will do that.

Great.

Most of the links to relevant documentation are available in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers

Java packaging HowTo is available at https://fedora-java.github.io/howto/latest/index.html

Feel free to contact us with questions on IRC on #fedora-java freenode channel.

I removed old spec and srpm and uploaded updated schema and newly created srpm:

Spec URL: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0ByDkUDLXsT0YYTZqTGc2YTJnSDQ
To download: wget --no-check-certificate 'https://drive.google.com/open?id=0ByDkUDLXsT0YYTZqTGc2YTJnSDQ' -O vdsm-jsonrpc-java.spec

SRPM URL: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0ByDkUDLXsT0YM05nenNid0REMGM
To download: wget --no-check-certificate 'https://drive.google.com/open?id=0ByDkUDLXsT0YM05nenNid0REMGM' -O vdsm-jsonrpc-java-1.3.1-master.fc23.src.rpm

Looks much better now.

Issues I found so far:
- There are missing BuildRequires, so the package doesn't build in mock. Most notably "maven-local" package which provides mvn_build. For other maven dependencies, there are some tools which can help you, see: https://fedora-java.github.io/howto/snapshot/index.html#error_missing_dependency
- The Release numbering is not correct - you won't be able to update to new snapshots with this scheme. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning - section about snapshot packages.
- _use_maven variable is always true, do you need it at all? You could get rid of it and the many ifs that use it.
- EPEL should contain stable packages that are updated only when there is a compelling reason, similarly to RHEL. I'm not much familiar with EPEL guidelines, but I'm afraid you shouldn't/cannot have snapshot package there. Did you consider packaging stable versions for Fedora and EPEL and using Copr for snapshots?
- The %description should be improved
- When using mvn_build, you shouldn't specify Requires - they are autogenerated.
- Changleog entries should contain release at the end. You can use tools like rpmdev-bumpspec to generate those.

Michael thank you for your feedback. Will follow your suggestions.

This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry
it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software
into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the
NEEDINFO flag.

You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version
available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase
chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you
need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned
and will be closed.
Thank you for your patience.

@Martin, do we still want to package it?

No, we don't have resources to included oVirt packages into Fedora, closing