I'll take this one.

First few comments:
* This package should be named rmic-maven-plugin to match upstream artifactId. We are actively working to make all plugins named this way.
* License.txt should be added as %doc to both packages so when someone installs some of the packages the corresponding license will be installed.

Ok, new spec and srpm:

Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8925090/rmic-maven-plugin.spec
SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8925090/rmic-maven-plugin-1.1-1.fc13.src.rpm

also updated requires to match the pom.xml

Are you sure, that the license should also go into the -javadoc package. I could neither find anything on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java nor is there another package that behaves like this.

Yes, please read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing . It is a change in the packaging guidelines from this week so it will took sometime for packages that are already in to be changed, but new packages should be made according to the guidelines.

Review:
OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. Output:
rmic-maven-plugin.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/rmic-maven-plugin
False positive.

rmic-maven-plugin.src: W: invalid-url Source0: rmic-maven-plugin-1.1.tar.gz
Upstream doesn't do source releases. 

OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. 
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK: 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 must be included in %doc. 
OK: The spec file must be written in American English. 
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. 
OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. 
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. 
OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of
those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory. 
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. 
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line. 
OK: Each package must consistently use macros. 
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content. 
OK: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. 
OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application. 
OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. 
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. 


This package is APPROVED.

Dropping FE-NEEDSPONSOR as the contributor is sponsored now.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: rmic-maven-plugin
Short Description: RMI Compiler Maven Plugin
Owners: spike
Branches: 
InitialCC: akurtakov

CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).