Taking this package review, as discussed.

Can you please replace the "Summary" in the bug title with the actually Summary tag of the package?

The "Description" field in the Package Review template is also usually meant to be used for the package description :)

I would also like to make some improvements to the package before we re-import it into fedora, instead of just pushing the f30 .spec file again.

1) You need to make sure NEVR of the new package sorts higher than what's last available in fedora right now. I think bumping the Release to "9" should be enough in this case.

2) For the Source0 tag, we could use:

Source0:        %{url}/archive/%{name}-%{namedversion}.tar.gz

This produces a file that also contains the name, not only the version.

3) Have you tried regenerating the BuildRequires with xmvn-builddep? Not all of them might be necessary anymore.

4) Why are the test failures ignored? Is the error still occurring, or is it something we can fix?

Thanks, Fabio for initial set of feedbacks. And I apologize for the wrong description! This is my first package in the review process :)

For your feedback:

I have fixed #1 and #3

For #2, instead of %{name}-%{namedversion}, I had to keep %{namedversion} since the releases in GH are named that way [1]

For #4, the error is due to missing dep (jdeparser) which was retired too. It seems like it needs to revived too. I went ahead and built it on my COPR and seems like jboss-logging-tools can now successfully build [2]

Question: Should I open a new bz to revive jdeparser too?

[1] https://github.com/jboss-logging/jboss-logging-tools/releases
[2] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/dmoluguw/jboss-logging-tools/build/1046077/

I went ahead and filed a review ticket for jdeparser: bz#1758686

(In reply to Dinesh Prasanth from comment #3)
> Thanks, Fabio for initial set of feedbacks. And I apologize for the wrong
> description! This is my first package in the review process :)
> 
> For your feedback:
> 
> I have fixed #1 and #3

You'll also need to create a changelog entry for the -9 release, though.

> For #2, instead of %{name}-%{namedversion}, I had to keep %{namedversion}
> since the releases in GH are named that way [1]

Ah, sorry, that's due to some copypasta on my side. It should be this:

Source0:        %{url}/archive/%{namedversion}/%{name}-%{namedversion}.tar.gz

> For #4, the error is due to missing dep (jdeparser) which was retired too.
> It seems like it needs to revived too. I went ahead and built it on my COPR
> and seems like jboss-logging-tools can now successfully build [2]

That's good news. It's always nice if you can actually run the test suites in your packages :)

> Question: Should I open a new bz to revive jdeparser too?
> 
> I went ahead and filed a review ticket for jdeparser: bz#1758686

Great, I'll look at that one as well.

> [1] https://github.com/jboss-logging/jboss-logging-tools/releases
> [2]
> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/dmoluguw/jboss-logging-tools/build/
> 1046077/

> You'll also need to create a changelog entry for the -9 release, though.

Done. 

https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/dmoluguw/jboss-logging-tools/build/1046115/

The test suite is still ignored, and there are some failures.

Maybe adding "export LANG=C.UTF-8" in %build would help? It looks like some i18n issues are happening here.

You should also update the package to the latest version for the re-review, which is 2.2.0 now.

I have a new build with 2.2.0

Spec: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dmoluguw/jboss-logging-tools/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01052747-jboss-logging-tools/jboss-logging-tools.spec
SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dmoluguw/jboss-logging-tools/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01052747-jboss-logging-tools/jboss-logging-tools-2.2.0-1.fc32.src.rpm

Few things to note:

1. I disabled `docs` module.

Justification:
==============
The docs module seems to be optional to me. Moreover, the -javadocs.rpm contains the javadoc.

2. I disabled `tests` and removed the `org.jboss.forge.roaster:` deps

Justification:
==============
The new test source [*] depends on roaster API which isn't packaged on fedora. So, I have disabled tests and removed the corresponding dep.

[*] https://github.com/jboss-logging/jboss-logging-tools/commit/29e97347e9535007c4387a0c7ca89444f4a8b7ce#diff-6c66b01da88cc50d706b3de0611d7081

I've applied some changes on top of your new .spec file, with the following suggestions for improvements:

- added License file for Apache 2.0 license (apparently it must be included in redistributed sources), but it's missing from upstream :(
- reordered BuildRequires
- remove one test that requires "roaster" stuff and enable test suite (instead of disabling it entirely). tests pass! :)
- add README and LICENSE to %files


Diff of my suggestions: https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/decathorpe/rpms/jboss-logging-tools/c/b5dd0f1?branch=master

@Fabio, thanks for the suggestion. I have rebuilt with your suggestions:

SPEC: https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/dmoluguw/rpms/jboss-logging-tools/raw/master/f/jboss-logging-tools.spec

SRPM: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/7976/38217976/jboss-logging-tools-2.2.0-1.fc32.src.rpm

Yep, package looks good now.

TL;DR: Package (re)approved!
Full review text below.

You can now continue with the unretirement request:
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8859

The package needs to be unretired in master, and unblocked in koji for the f32 and f31 tags.

Once that's done, you can request the f31 branch with fedpkg.


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

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


Issues:
=======


===== 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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of 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 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:
[-]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: 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.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
[-]: 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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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
-------
Checking: jboss-logging-tools-2.2.0-1.fc32.noarch.rpm
          jboss-logging-tools-javadoc-2.2.0-1.fc32.noarch.rpm
          jboss-logging-tools-2.2.0-1.fc32.src.rpm
jboss-logging-tools.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pacakge -> package
jboss-logging-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pacakge -> package
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
perl: warning: Setting locale failed.
perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings:
	LANGUAGE = (unset),
	LC_ALL = (unset),
	LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8",
	LANG = "en_GB.UTF-8"
    are supported and installed on your system.
perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C").
perl: warning: Setting locale failed.
perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings:
	LANGUAGE = (unset),
	LC_ALL = (unset),
	LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8",
	LANG = "en_GB.UTF-8"
    are supported and installed on your system.
perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C").
jboss-logging-tools.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pacakge -> package
jboss-logging-tools.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/jboss-logging/jboss-logging-tools <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
jboss-logging-tools-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/jboss-logging/jboss-logging-tools <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30
https://github.com/jboss-logging/jboss-logging-tools/archive/2.2.0.Final/jboss-logging-tools-2.2.0.Final.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 4cc37b3668259ebf3fff23f9dee715ef91eea35df4171ff9e39b12f67627b4cc
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4cc37b3668259ebf3fff23f9dee715ef91eea35df4171ff9e39b12f67627b4cc


Requires
--------
jboss-logging-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java-headless
    javapackages-filesystem
    mvn(org.jboss.jdeparser:jdeparser)

jboss-logging-tools-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    javapackages-filesystem



Provides
--------
jboss-logging-tools:
    jboss-logging-tools
    mvn(org.jboss.logging:jboss-logging-annotations)
    mvn(org.jboss.logging:jboss-logging-annotations:pom:)
    mvn(org.jboss.logging:jboss-logging-processor)
    mvn(org.jboss.logging:jboss-logging-processor:pom:)
    mvn(org.jboss.logging:jboss-logging-tools-parent:pom:)

jboss-logging-tools-javadoc:
    jboss-logging-tools-javadoc



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.3 (44b83c7) last change: 2019-09-18
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --name jboss-logging-tools
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-{{ target_arch }}
Active plugins: Shell-api, Java, Generic
Disabled plugins: Haskell, fonts, SugarActivity, R, C/C++, PHP, Perl, Ocaml, Python
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Closing this since jboss-logging-tools is now built and available in rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1402228